Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Lancaster (Lonsdale Division), in the room of David Robert Alexander Lindsay, esquire, commonly called Lord Balniel, now Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford and Balcarres), called up to the House of Peers.—(Mr. James Stuart.)

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NEEDS TEST.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether consideration is being given to the need to change the administration of the means test or abolish the test?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have nothing to add to the replies given to similar Questions by the hon. Member on 16th November and 25th January.

Mr. Smith: Does that mean that the Government will give consideration to this matter?

SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement regarding unemployment in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry in the Greenock area and in the country generally?

Mr. E. Brown: I am in consultation with the organisations of employers and workpeople in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry on the general problem of labour supply. The absorption of suitable unemployed workers registered in shipbuilding and ship repairing occupations is one of the questions under discussion, and both employers' and work-peoples' representatives have undertaken

to co-operate with my Department in a special examination of the industrial capacity of such men.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman having a review made of the men unemployed in this industry, particularly in Greenock, and for the purpose of finding out how many have been unemployed for a long time, and who really do not belong to this industry; and is he taking special measures in such cases to train the men for employment?

Mr. Brown: In the consultations to which I have referred, a specific examination is being made of these matters, not merely in Greenock but in every place concerned.

Mr. Shinwell: When does the Minister expect to be able to make a statement as to the number of unemployed shipyard workers who have been absorbed in the shipuilding industry?

Mr. Brown: I have made a number of statistics available. There is very rapid absorption of unemployed shipbuilding workers.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the Minister aware that the last available figures showed that more than 16,000 shipyard workers were unemployed? Is not that unsatisfactory?

Mr. Brown: The last available figures, those of 12th March, showed 12,500 unemployed.

Mr. Shinwell: Those are later figures.

EMPLOYMENT OFFERS REFUSED.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in considering claims for unemployment assistance from insured persons, information is obtained as to whether benefit has been stopped on the ground of unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of employment; where this is so, does the fact debar the applicant from unemployment assistance or influence the amount granted; and is any record kept of the number of such cases?

Mr. E. Brown: I am informed that it is the practice of the Board's officers, in cases where an application for assistance is received from a person whose unemployment benefit has been stopped, to ascertain from the local office of the Ministry of Labour and National Service the reason for the stoppage. Where the bene-


fit has been stopped on the ground of unreasonable refusal of an offer of suitable employment, assistance is not necessarily refused, but the amount of any allowance granted may be adjusted in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case. The Board's policy in this matter is explained on page 29–30 of their Annual Report for 1937. With regard to the last part of the Question, no record is kept of the number of such cases.

Miss Rathbone: Am I right in thinking that where it is a question of statutory benefit, the benefit is always stopped in case of unreasonable refusal, and does the reply indicate that people who apply for unemployment assistance are in a more favourable position than people who apply for benefit?

Mr. Brown: Not at all. There is statutory machinery for those on benefit, and that machinery operates in every case, with a right of appeal. Where assistance is given, the amount may be adjusted in the light of all the circumstances of the individual case.

FARM WORKERS.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to ascertain the whereabouts of the 47,555 farm workers registered as unemployed; and whether he will instruct the Employment Exchanges to keep branches of the National Farmers' Union informed so as to provide the much-needed labour on the land?

Mr. E. Brown: The total of farm workers registered as unemployed to which the hon. Member refers related to 12th February and included many persons temporarily unemployed owing to weather conditions. The total on 11th March was 20,217. Any farmer requiring workers should notify the nearest local office of my Department when the normal procedure will enable him to be put in touch with any worker on the register who may be suitable. My Department works in close co-operation with the county war agricultural executive committees and through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, I am in constant touch with the National Farmers' Union, but I should be happy to arrange any additional form of co-operation that might be helpful.

Sir P. Hurd: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the point that there are in the towns many young fellows of 18 years of age and upwards who, before being called up, would be glad to work on the land? Do the Employment Exchanges give those young fellows the information needed to put them in touch with the farmers?

Mr. Brown: The Question on the Paper refers specifically to registered farm workers.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: What proportion of the 20,217 referred to are skilled men?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that question without notice. The House will see that, compared with the 750,000 insured persons, the figure of 20,217 represents an infinitesimal fraction.

Mr. T. Smith: Are those farm workers registered as unemployed spread evenly over the country, or is there any area in which the number is particularly large?

Mr. Brown: The latest figures seem to show that there is a large proportion in parts of Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Cassells: May I ask whether, in the light of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to take every step forthwith to see that skilled agricultural workers return to the land, whether they are on military service or not?

Mr. Brown: That is not my responsibility.

CASTLEFORD, NORMANTON AND PONTEFRACT.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of wholly unemployed registered at Castleford, Normanton and Pontefract on the latest date available; and how these figures compare with the end of August, 1939?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will forward them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Smith: In areas where unemployment has not been reduced a great deal since the beginning of the war, have any special inquiries been made with a view to seeing that some of these men are absorbed into industry?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

RECRUITS (MENTAL DEFECTS).

Mr. C. Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour how many conscripts have been, on medical examination, found to suffer from mental defects; and whether this number is higher or lower than that in the general population as estimated by the Wood Committee of 1927?

Mr. E. Brown: Information relating to the number of recruits found on medical examination to be suffering from mental defects is not available?

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware of the widespread concern and dissatisfaction throughout the country that no statistics or check are kept by his Department to show whether conscientious objectors who have been ordered to obtain work of national importance in fact do so or not; and whether he will have returns kept;
(2) whether he is satisfied that it is sufficient to rely on the services of common informers under Section 5 (8) of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act to ensure that conscientious objectors are in fact performing the work of national importance specified by tribunals; and will he take steps to impose a better control of their activities?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction such as my hon. Friend mentions. In the light of the first six months' working of the Act I have issued instructions instituting a system of checking compliance with orders of tribunals directing conscientious objectors to take up specified civilian work, and statistics will be kept. Where conscientious objectors are found not to be taking reasonable steps to obtain the work specified, the cases will be referred by my Department to the local tribunals.

Mr. Etherton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his reply will give great satisfaction to all patriots in this country, and if I again put down the Question which I previously asked, requesting him to give me numbers, will he be able to give a reply?

Mr. Brown: Statistics are being kept.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the Minister assure the House that the law will be applied to these conscientious objectors in the same way as it applied to people in the Fighting Services?

Mr. Brown: I shall do my utmost to administer the provisions of the Act.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a direct obligation on these men to obtain work just as much as it is on the men in the Armed Forces to do their work?

Mr. Brown: The law is quite clear?

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to form a brigade of conscientious objectors to perform non-combatant work of national importance so that their conditions and pay will be similar to the Fighting Services?

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that conscientious objectors are not taking part in the defence of the country, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are conscripted to work for the benefit of the country at military rates of pay?

Mr. E. Brown: The provisions in the Armed Forces Act with regard to conscientious objectors were approved very recently by Parliament and represented, I think I may say, a general measure of agreement on this difficult subject. Conscientious objectors may be required, in appropriate cases, to perform non-combatant service in the Forces. So far as the suggestions made by my hon. Friends go beyond this they would require an alteration in the law and I do not contemplate introducing legislation for this purpose.

Mr. Etherton: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is extremely unsatisfactory that conscientious objectors should be in a more favourable position with regard to pay and conditions?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

REGISTRATION AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Mr. Wilson: asked the Minister of Labour in what cases and for whatpurposes persons are being requested to call at Employment Exchanges with their


birth certificates and are there questioned as to their parentage, birthplace and office of registration, and why there is an examination of identity card; and whether it is intended that this practice is to be applied generally?

Mr. E. Brown: The inquiries and inspection of the documents mentioned are made in cases where it appears that men who may be liable under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, to be called up for service have not registered or attended for medical examination as required, and the purpose is to determine whether or not they are, in fact, so liable. The practice is not applied generally but only in cases where liability under the Act is in question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make a statement on the work of the National Joint Advisory Council and on any changes they have proposed and on which it is intended to take action?

Mr. E. Brown: While not affecting in any way the autonomy and effectiveness of the joint machinery in the various industries the National Joint Advisory Council has been of the greatest value in providing a means of consultation on general matters concerning those engaged in industry and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing appreciation of the way in which the representatives of both sides have placed their experience and knowledge at the disposal of the Government. It is not practicable for me in this reply to refer to the many matters discussed or to indicate the action which may be taken on subjects still under discussion, some of which concern problems which offer no easy solution. I feel, however, that the continuance of the co-operation we have experienced will be of the greatest assistance to the Government in the difficult decisions for which it must be responsible in the winning of the war.

Mr. Smith: Has consideration been given to the friction that is caused by the means test, and if so, is any action to be taken with regard to it?

Mr. Brown: There is a point about that under consideration at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL REGISTER.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the reorganisation of the Central Register?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having a review made, in the light of experience, to see in what ways the machinery of the Central Register may be improved.

Mr. Gledhill: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the very high cost as compared with the number of positions filled, and will he also consider making more direct use of the professional association and employment agencies?

Mr. Brown: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. This was never meant to be an employment register. It is a Register available to the Government for war purposes so that they will know where to go for specialised knowledge.

Mr. Gledhill: Why not use the Register then?

Mr. Brown: We do.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEWARTS AND LLOYDS, LIMITED (WORKER'S DISMISSAL).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that William Ross, who was a Parliamentary candidate in the recent by-election at Kettering, has been dismissed by his employers, Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds; that this dismissal has created serious discontent amongst the workers at Corby; and whether it is his intention to intervene with a view to having Mr. Ross reinstated?

Mr. E. Brown: I understand that the matter to which the hon. Member refers has been discussed in accordance with the constitutional arrangements in the industry. In the circumstances I do not think there is any action I can usefully take.

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that the offence complained of here is merely technical and is not uncommon in all large industries; and as this man was a candidate for Parliament during his absence from work, is the Minister prepared to take steps to prove that there is no political victimisation by an endeavour to deprive this man of his employment?

Mr. Brown: I thought my answer would have shown that. I have pointed out that my information is that this matter has been discussed through the proper constitutional machinery and in the light of the information which I have received, I do not think there is any action which I can usefully take.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that this man wrote to the firm immediately he was nominated, and explained the reason for his absence?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that is so. My information is that he and another man absented themselves from work without having applied for or obtained permission.

Mr. Sloan: Even if the man is prepared to admit that he was in error, are we to understand from the Minister's answer that his dismissal is to be definite and that he is no longer to be allowed to work, because he became a candidate for Parliament?

Mr. Brown: That is not the issue.

Mr. Sloan: I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements he has made for the spread-over of holidays during the coming summer season?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given on 21st March to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Thorne: Where employers arrange with the employés in an industry is the arrangement submitted to the Ministry for consent?

Mr. Brown: Where we have joint machinery in an industry we are constantly informed of the arrangements made.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Mr. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regional committees for the reviewing of the cases of certain aliens have now been set up; of whom they are composed; and whether any of them have started work?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): Twelve regional advisory committees, one for the area of each Civil Defence region, have been appointed. Each committee is composed of a chairman with legal qualifications and a panel of lay members who are prominent residents in the region. The committee when sitting to hear cases will consist of the chairman and two lay members drawn from the panel. In addition, the chairman will be assisted by two representatives of the Defence Departments when the committee is considering the cases of aliens resident in a protected area. A considerable amount of preliminary work has already been done by the police, who have the duty of bringing cases before the committees, and I understand that the actual hearing of cases by the committees will begin within the course of a week or a fortnight.

Mr. Duncan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him whether it is clear that nothing which these committees do will detract from his authority to take action in special cases?

Sir J. Anderson: It is always possible to make representations to me in urgent cases, and I am under no obligation to await the consideration of the case by a committee in such circumstances.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the panel is composed of citizens of both sexes?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Levy: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now decided if the enemy alien, named Solf, who was recently sent to prison for an offence, while uninterned, against the Defence Regulations, is to be interned on his release from gaol; and, if not, what action it is proposed to take in this case?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. This man was interned on the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment.

Sir Gifford Fox: Is my right hon. Friend able to give an assurance that this man will continue to be interned for the rest of the war

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I can give no assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOTTLE PARTIES.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Home Secretary whether he can indicate the number of bottle parties now existing in the Metropolitan area?

Sir J. Anderson: On 31st March, 1940, the number of known bottle parties in the Metropolitan Police District was 27.

Mr. Liddall: In view of that rather large number, does the right hon. Gentleman intend taking any action?

Sir J. Anderson: I may say that there has been no recent increase in the number of these bottle parties, and in any event, I am at the present time considering very carefully with my advisers whether any special strengthening of the law is necessary.

Mr. Thorne: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the disgraceful case which was before the courts yesterday in connection with this matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not yet received any special report on that case. Doubtless it will come before me in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

BLACK-OUT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. Cary: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now any statement to make in regard to the modification of the black-out restrictions?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY (PAY).

30. Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a large number of inspectors and sergeants of the special constabulary gave up lucrative posts at the outbreak of war in order to render whole-time service, a service that was not to be expected in time of peace; that many of them are undertaking work almost equal to that of regular police officers; and whether, in view of the permanence of the employment, he will revise their rates of pay to conform more nearly to the pay of the regulars?

Sir J. Anderson: While I appreciate the work which is being done by those inspectors and sergeants of the Special Constabulary who are now giving full time service, I could not accept the suggestion that their rates of pay should be

fixed by reference to the pay of inspectors and sergeants of the regular police. The arrangement made at the outbreak of war was that special constables who are willing to give full time service shall be paid—like other members of the Civil Defence services—a flat rate of £3 a week irrespective of rank or length of service; and the fact that among those who accepted this arrangement there are men who gave up lucrative posts in order to render public service is not, I think, a ground for altering the scheme.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister recognise that other forms of Civil Defence are quite different from the duties demanded from the Special Constabulary which, in fact, are more akin to home military service, in which people who have enlisted for the period of the war are paid the same rate as the regular soldiers?

Sir J. Anderson: I have the greatest difficulty in drawing any sharp distinction between one form of Civil Defence and another.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister really equate the services of an inspector of Special Constabulary with those of a woman member of the A.F.S.?

Sir J. Anderson: I did not make any such comparison.

RESPIRATORS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to make any charge for replacement or repair of gas-masks where defects are due not to lack of care but to normal wear and tear or to deficiencies in the mask itself?

Sir J. Anderson: Members of the public are expected to take reasonable care of the respirators issued to them, and until respirators have been worn under air-raid conditions no question of normal wear and tear should arise. No charge will be made for the replacement or repair of a respirator lost or damaged during an air raid, or during a time when a public air-raid warning is in operation in the area in which the loss or damage occurs; nor will a charge be made if a respirator is found to have been issued in a defective condition.

Mr. Simmonds: Is a repair organisation in existence?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

POISON GAS (PROTECTION).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the steps taken to provide troops and air-raid personnel with protection against Arthur gas, he will take similar measures for the protection of the civilian population against this gas?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 15th February to a Question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish).

CIVILIAN RESPIRATOR INSPECTION (GREENFORD).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information as to the results of the inspection made at Greenford recently of civilian respirators; what number were found to be defective; and what was the main defect that showed itself?

Sir J. Anderson: The inspection at Greenford is still in progress, but I have arranged to be informed of the number of respirators found to be defective and the nature of the defects and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS (MISUSE).

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that some local authorities are passing resolutions urging that power should be given them to proceed against persons who misuse public air-raid shelters; and whether he intends to deal with the matter?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not had any representations from local authorities as to the misuse of public shelters. I shall shortly be communicating to local authorities advice as to the best methods of closing public shelters in such a way that they can be promptly opened in the event of an air-raid warning. Many local authorities have already done this. Destruction or theft of property can, of course, be dealt with under the general law and I am not aware that local authorities desire any other powers than are already available to them in order to deal with this matter.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister keep in mind that in certain areas where offences have taken place inside public air-raid

shelters the magistrate's clerk and the police have rather hesitated to take out summonses, being of the opinion that there was no Statute under which they could deal with such cases? Will he have inquiries made on this point, and if I send him information will he look into it?

Sir J. Anderson: I will do that with pleasure.

EDUCATION AUTHORITIES' EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to meet representatives from the local authorities to discuss the question of grants in respect of air-raid precautions work for schools in accordance with agreements reached and embodied in the Schedule of the 1937 Act, and which have since been varied?

Sir J. Anderson: I have already begun discussions with representatives of local authorities on the general question of expenditure on Civil Defence, and I have promised that expenditure incurred by local education authorities in providing protective works at schools will be taken into account in the course of the statutory review of expenditure under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. In view of the terms of the Question, I should add that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the present rate of Exchequer grant in respect of protective works at schools involves any variation from agreements reached in 1937.

Mr. Whiteley: Do I understand that the statements made by the local education authorities are incorrect?

Sir J. Anderson: The statements made by local education authorities relate to negotiations to which these authorities were not a party. Those who were concerned in the negotiations did not themselves make any suggestion of this kind. The answer, therefore, is that the local authorities in question have been under a complete misapprehension.

Mr. Burke: Will the local education authorities be represented in these negotiations as well as the local authorities?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, because the question being considered is the burden on the funds of local authorities for that purpose, and it is not necessary to make any distinction between the burden on funds of education authorities and other forms of expenditure.

Mr. Burke: Is it not a fact that the education authorities have a particular point of view?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that point of view is well known.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister not aware that a number of schools have been turned into fire stations? Would it not be a great expense to convert them back to schools?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think the expense is thrown on the local education authorities at all.

EVACUATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the growing opposition of persons to being compelled to billet evacuated children, as evidenced in the law courts, he proposes to modify the regulations?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): No, Sir. I fear it would not be possible to forego the compulsory powers which enable a billeting authority to make certain of billets for children if the billets required cannot be obtained in the usual way.

Mr. Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the result of the census taken by some of the evacuating local authorities and the very poor results obtained in this connection?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. That makes it all the more necessary that if the emergency arises we should have these powers.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the failure of parents to register their children for the second evacuation scheme is due to the failure of the Government to offer billets in camps or hostels as an alternative to private houses; and what steps he proposes to take to get over this difficulty?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to her on 22nd February and to paragraph 70 of Memorandum Ev.8 of which I am sending her a copy.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he has ordered this week the dispersal of Fulham School, in spite if the combined protests

of teachers and parents, because a few of the private householders are tired and want a rest; and does he think that this is calculated to encourage parents to re-register their children?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Lady is well aware that both the London County Council, the education authority and the billeting authority desire that this change should be made, and nothing could be worse for evacuation than that the Minister, in response to private representations, should overturn the careful decision of the education and billeting authorities.

Dr. Summerskill: Was not this decision due to the failure of private billeting?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Minister tell me to what it is due?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Lady has had the opportunity of long interviews on this subject, and I have also had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the education authority and billeting authority concerned. I do not think it would be advisable to go over it again on the Floor of the House.

Dr. Summerskill: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this matter now.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether adequate provision of sick bays and of hospital treatment now exists for evacuated children in all existing reception areas; whether he is satisfied with provisional medical arrangements for children likely to be evacuated in the new evacuation scheme; and whether similar plans for the treatment of sick and ill evacuated children as have been adopted by the Essex County Council also exist in other comparable counties?

Mr. Elliot: I consider that the arrangements which have been, and are being, made should be adequate. As regards the last part of the Question, I am not clear to what special provision in Essex, differing from that in other reception areas, the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any communication from Essex County Council regarding the necessity for meeting the needs of children who do not actually require to go to hospital but require some special treatment which cannot be given in their billets or homes?

Mr. Elliot: I have had representations from local authorities on that point and have done my best to meet it in circular Ev. 8. If there is any further point which the hon. Member has in mind I should be glad to hear from him.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he can report on the response of parents to the new evacuation scheme; the number of children provisionally registered and their approximate proportion to the total number of children now in evacuation areas; whether he has any information respecting the number of children, each month, leaving reception areas to return home, and both the number and percentage of the total original number of evacuated children who have remained in the reception areas; and whether he can give the approximate number and percentage of evacuated mothers who have remained in reception areas?

Mr. Elliot: The registration to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of the Question continued up to the 31st March and I have not as yet received returns from the local authorities. The number of parents who have registered as desiring their children to be evacuated if aerial warfare should develop is, however, small. Returns of the numbers of school children in respect of whom billeting allowances are payable show that the numbers in the reception areas were as follow:


December
434,000


January
393,000


February
365,000


March
347,000


19,500 mothers remained in the reception areas in January, the latest date for which information is available.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that only a small percentage of parents have registered under the new scheme does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any further action regarding evacuation in the future?

Mr. Elliot: We are making plans to move children if an emergency arises, and we shall naturally review the position when all the returns are in. I do not think I can say more than that at this time.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that German aeroplanes come near to reception areas very much more frequently than they come near to evacuation areas, and is it not time that the whole scheme was dropped?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir. I think the hon. Member has missed the point about the value of dispersal. A bomb falling in an area where there are 80,000 people to the square mile is likely to do more damage than a bomb falling in a less densely-populated district.

VOLUNTARY WORKERS (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the event of a widow being killed whilst doing duty as a civilian defence volunteer, her children will be granted any compensation?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): In such a case a pension would be payable to any dependent child under the terms of the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the event of a wife being killed whilst doing duty as a civilian defence volunteer, the husband, who has an Army disability pension in respect of his wife which automatically ceases on her death, will be given compensation?

Sir W. Womersley: The additional allowance granted to a disablement pensioner in respect of his wife is intended to assist him in maintaining her during her lifetime, and there is no provision for compensation on account of its discontinuance owing to her death from any cause.

Mr. Leslie: In a case like this, where the wife was doing national service and her death means a monetary loss to her husband, will no compensation be paid?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no provision for it in the existing legislation.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Member considered those few cases in which, owing to disability or for some other reason, the husband has been financially dependent upon his wife? In those cases cannot there be some compensation?

Sir W. Womersley: I have heard of no such cases, but I will consider any that are brought to my notice.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman consider them?

Sir W. Womersley: I have told the hon. Member, yes.

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Pensions whether in the event of a wife being killed whilst doing duty as a civilian defence volunteer, the husband will be granted compensation?

Sir W. Womersley: Compensation in the case mentioned would not be due under the Personal Injuries Scheme.

Mr. Thorne: Why should not a man be compensated for the loss of his wife as well as the wife being compensated for the loss of her husband?

Sir W. Womersley: The scheme was drawn up on the basis of the loss of the breadwinner.

Mr. Cassells: Is it not possible for the wife to be the breadwinner of the family?

Sir W. Womersley: There is such a possibility, but it is very remote.

Mr. Cassells: But if it is so, will the hon. Gentleman consider it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS (CLOSING ORDERS).

Mr. Doland: asked the Home Secretary how many closing orders have been made under Sections 5 and 6 of the Shops Act, 1912, and are in operation at the present time; how many such orders apply to all shops in the area and to shops of any specified class, respectively, and the names of the local authorities in whose areas such orders have been made; and whether any orders are now awaiting his consideration?

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer contains a number of figures I will with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the answer:

The records show that 1,065 closing orders, made by 356 separate local authorities under Section 5 of the Shops Act, 1912, and confirmed by the Secretary of State under Section 6 of that Act, are at

present in force. Twenty-nine of these orders apply specifically to all classes of shop which can be made the subject of a closing order; the remaining 1,036 orders apply either to one or to more than one specified class of shop. I am sending my hon. Friend the names of the 356 authorities which have made orders. Four orders are at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (OBJECTIONABLE PERFORMANCES).

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether he intends to confer with the Lord Chamberlain and representatives of the licensing authorities with a view to the banning of nude and semi-nude shows which are condemned by dramatic critics and offensive to the bulk of the general public; and whether it is his intention to apply to all threatres and music halls the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, which governs the cinema, that no indecency of dress or anything that is in any shape offensive to public decency shall be permitted?

Captain Plugge: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the spread of nudism on the London stage; and whether he is satisfied that the police have adequate powers to deal with it?

Sir J. Anderson: This is a matter which concerns the authorities (including the Lord Chamberlain within his jurisdiction) who are responsible for the licensing of places of public entertainment. Their attention has been drawn to the complaints which have been made and I have no doubt that these complaints will receive careful consideration. So far as London is concerned, I understand that the Lord Chamberlain is in consultation with the London County Council. The control of living performers who can by slight changes of behaviour alter the character of a scene is in practice more difficult than the control of pictures printed on a cinematograph film, but the responsibility resting on the licensing authorities for the maintenance of standards of decency is similar in both cases.

Dr. Little: Seeing that the evils of bottle parties and nudity are going hand in hand, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would exercise his wide


powers and, if required, seek for additional powers, in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain, and the licensing authorities, in order to put down these twin abominations?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think the Lord Chamberlain has anything to do with bottle parties. He is arranging a conference to take place at an early date and I shall receive a report of that conference and give it careful consideration in due course.

Mr. Levy: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and in view of the fact that the Lord Chamberlain has no authority over these cabaret shows and bottle parties, is not that all the more reason why he should take action to deal with this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER-TIME.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now introduce legislation to enable him to extend summer-time by a further hour?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. I am not aware of any demand for this change on the part of those who would be most affected by it.

Mr. Adams: Is it not worth while reducing black-out accidents to a minimum? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his refusal will, inevitably, mean a number of avoidable road deaths?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that conclusion can be drawn as regards the summer months.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Home Secretary aware that the miners would be opposed to this?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (KENT).

Captain Plugge: asked the President of the Board of Education whether school attendance has become compulsory in any districts of Kent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Compulsory school attendance, except in certain schools where difficulty is being experienced in providing shelter

accommodation, has been or will be re-introduced at the beginning of the coming term in all districts of Kent with the exception of Rochester. In two areas compulsory attendance is limited to children over the ages of seven and six respectively.

Mr. Mander: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether in future it will be made compulsory for the President of the Board to hold office for more than a month at a time?

EVACUATED CHILDREN.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now make a statement respecting present arrangements for the compulsory school attendance of children in evacuation areas; their average weekly hours of education; the approximate number and percentage of evacuable children who are not now evacuated but are receiving education; and the number and percentage of secondary school scholars who are now receiving education in secondary schools in their home area?

Mr. Lindsay: A statement of the present position in regard to the various matters to which the hon. Member refers cannot be made until returns for which the Board have asked have been received from the local education authorities concerned and collated. The desired information will be available later this month, and I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — DE-RATING (SMALL BUSINESS PREMISES).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now reached a conclusion regarding the granting of de-rating to small shopkeepers; and whether he will make a statement regarding the rating of other business people whose businesses have been adversely affected by the war?

Mr. Elliot: I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation to extend the scope of the existing de-rating provisions.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the fact of the conditions which were alleged to make de-rating necessary when de-rating was made previously in respect of certain industrial premises, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPERTY LEASES (WAR CONDITIONS).

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the serious losses occasioned to tradesmen, boarding-house keepers and others in certain evacuation areas by reason of the evacuation policy of the Government; and whether he will consider obtaining some contribution from the reception areas who have benefited by the Government's policy in this regard towards meeting the losses referred to in the evacuation areas; and whether a revision of the block grants paid by the Government to the areas in question has been considered?

Mr. Elliot: I am not at present in a position to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General on 13th March.

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend realise the benefit derived by reception areas in not having empty properties and consequently not having to increase their rates, and that this is due to the war and is a war profit? In regard to the policy of the Government in this matter, does he not think he ought to take steps to see that the areas which have suffered should have some recompense from those who have made a profit out of that suffering as a result of the war?

Mr. Elliot: I am afraid the matter is rather more complicated than that.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a fact that block grants are made to areas?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS ACT, 1940.

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to make widely known, in simple language, the provisions of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, in order to ensure that all those women entitled to pensions at the age of 60 years, and old age pensioners in need of further assistance are advised how, when and where to make their claims?

Mr. Elliot: Steps have been taken through the medium of the Press and the B.B.C. to bring to the notice of women who will be between the ages of 60 and

65 on 1st July, 1940, and who may then become entitled to old age pensions under the provisions of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, the importance of making early application for pensions on a form which may be obtained at any Post Office. These forms are accompanied by leaflets which explain the conditions for the award of a pension. I should welcome the co-operation of all hon. Members in making the provisions of the Act known as widely as possible. Claims are being received in large numbers—80,000 had been received by mid-day yesterday. As regards supplementary pensions which do not first become payable by the Assistance Board until the first week of August next, explanatory leaflets such as my hon. Friend suggests will be available in adequate time at all Post Offices.

Sir A. Maitland: The Minister gave the figure of about 80,000. May I ask how many were anticipated?

Mr. Elliot: The figure of 80,000 was the number received by mid-day yesterday. It has only just begun and there are 300,000 to come in.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what procedure will be adopted in making the additional appointments to his staff to administer the Old Age Pensions Act; and whether he will have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with knowledge of the Welsh language to such posts in Wales?

Mr. Elliot: The additional temporary clerical staff required for work in connection with the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, are being recruited through the Ministry of Labour. As far as appointments in Wales are concerned due regard will be had to the qualification referred to in the latter part of the Question.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Health the procedure to be followed by applicants for supplementary old age pensions; and when the forms of application will be available?

Mr. Elliot: Application for a supplementary pension will be made on a form which will be obtainable at any post office. The Assistance Board are taking steps to ensure that application forms are available in ample time before August,


when supplementary pensions are first payable, and the public will be informed as soon as the forms are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state what acreage of grassland was scheduled to be ploughed up in Gloucestershire under the £2-an-acre scheme; and how many acres have actually been ploughed?

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): For the reasons I gave in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) yesterday, I do not think that it would be in the interests of the food production campaign to publish the information asked for at this stage, but I can assure the hon. Member that very satisfactory progress indeed has been made in Gloucestershire.

Mr. W. Roberts: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this information is obtainable in the local Press of the counties concerned?

Colonel Burton: asked the Minister of Agriculture at what date tractors will be available for use in the Rawreth area of Essex?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: So far as I am aware agricultural tractors available in the Rawreth area of Essex are sufficient to meet the needs of the district and no report of any deficiency has been brought to my notice.

Colonel Burton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that a large area is waiting to be ploughed up and that they are waiting for tractors but cannot get them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me some particulars.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY (TRAINING COSTS).

Mr. Levy: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the cost of raising, training and equipping the Women's Land Army; whether their work on the land is a success and acceptable to farmers; and is he satisfied that this organisation is efficient and economical?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: As the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Levy: Can my right hon. Friend answer verbally the last part of the Question?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that this organisation is efficient and economical.

Following is the reply:

The cost of providing four weeks' training on an approved farm for those members of the Women's Land Army who need it is £5 each, to which has to be added the cost of travelling to and from the place of training. The cost of training at Agricultural Colleges and Farm Institutes amounts to about double that sum, because a contribution has naturally to be made towards the expenses of the institution. The cost of equipping a Women's Land Army volunteer with the outfit necessary for her to undertake farm work is between £3 and £4.

The cost to my Department of recruiting volunteers, of organising their training, arranging to meet the employment demand from farmers and supervising the general welfare of the volunteers is expected to amount to between £60,000 and £70,000 during the financial year 1940. This covers administrative costs at headquarters, the cost of the county organisation throughout England and Wales and expenditure on recruiting and propaganda, including the proposed recruitment of an untrained Auxiliary Force for seasonal work during 1940. I am glad to be able to say that many messages of appreciation of the work that is being done by Women's Land Army volunteers are being received, and I am satisfied that the organisation of the supply of this valuable additional labour is not only essential but is both efficient and economical.

HORSE-BREEDING GRANTS.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as any substantial increase in the number of horses available for transport in the near future in this country would involve importation of horses, and as the expansion of agriculture now proceeding is likely to cause a demand for an increased number of horses for transport purposes


for many years to come, he will reinstate the system of grants to encourage horse breeding?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to him on 14th March, to which I have nothing to add.

Sir J. Lucas: In view of the fact that it has been just announced that the French Government are subsidising horse-breeding and stud farms, thus reversing the policy of the last war, would not the Minister also be strong-minded and reverse his decision, as the amount is only £8,000?

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before coming to a decision about the support to be given by his Department for the breeding of horses for use in agriculture, he will set up an expert inquiry into the relative costs of horse and mechanical transport for various agricultural operations and into the relative merits of such transport from a national point of view, taking into account that mechanical transport requires the import both of fuel and of materials for the manufacture of the vehicle whereas horses are reproductive, consume home-produced fodder, and also provide useful by-products?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. The question has already been fully considered, and although I appreciate the value of horses for agricultural work, I have reached the conclusion that, in present conditions, we must rely almost entirely upon the use of mechanical power in our campaign to bring about the desired increase in food production. As was explained to my hon. and gallant Friend in reply to his Question on 14th March on the subject, breeding in this and subsequent seasons is not likely to have any effect upon supplies of agricultural horses for some time to come.

TENANT FARMERS (SECURITY OF TENURE).

51. Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the reluctance of tenant farmers to go in for whole-hearted and large-scale improvements that the war demands, in order to secure the maximum output from the farms, he will introduce legislation to safeguard tenant farmers by giving them security of tenure, conditional upon their

effective farming, such security of tenure being for the duration of the war and five years afterwards?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: In my view the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in regard to compensation for improvements, for continuous adoption of a special standard or system of farming, and for disturbance are such that no tenant farmer need be deterred from farming his land in the most efficient manner. In these circumstances I am satisfied that there is no case for legislation on the lines indicated.

TILE DRAINAGE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Labour with a view to the utilisation of the many skilled building operatives who have now no work and are unemployed as a result of the Government's restrictions on building for a comprehensive tile drainage scheme throughout the country, in view of the many millions of waterlogged acres which are unsuitable for mole drainage; and whether he will implement legislation to effect this?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have already been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on this matter and I understand that the Government's programme of works and buildings is expected to absorb a large number of workers in the building and allied industries and therefore it cannot be assumed that skilled building operatives will be available for field drainage work on farms.

Mr. De la Bère: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider setting up training centres to train men to do draining work? Is it not increasingly certain that this drainage will have to be done in the near future, and would it not be wise to take the initiative at an early date?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I dealt with the question of training last night and I said that I hoped to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider conscripting conscientious objectors for this work?

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend have a word with me afterwards?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We will have some tea.

UNUSED LAND (CULTIVATION).

54. Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent vacant and unused land is now being cultivated under the Cultivation of Land (Allotments) Order, 1939; and what steps are being taken to ensure that the councils make the fullest possible use of the powers delegated to them?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I expect to receive reports from local authorities in a few weeks time. With regard to the last part of the Question, circulars have been sent to the local authorities concerned urging them to exercise their powers as widely as possible; in addition a campaign of publicity has been carried out by means of posters and leaflets, broadcast talks and public meetings, all directed to the stimulation and organisation of the demand for war-time allotments.

Mr. Stokes: In cases where a local authority is over-burdened with local landlords will any penalty be put on landlords who refuse to use their land?

Mr. Noel-Baker: In his campaign of propaganda will the Minister use the co-operation of the Ministry of Information?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, it is done in co-operation with the Ministry of Information.

HYDROPONICS.

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the great success achieved by Pan American Airways in growing fresh vegetables by hydroponics on Wake Island and in other places where no soil is available; and whether, in view of the fact that this method would enable town-dwellers to grow much of their own food even if they have no gardens, he will issue a pamphlet on the subject; and, if necessary, obtain information from the United States Ministry of Agriculture?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware of the research and experimental work which has been and is being carried out on the soil-less cultivation of plants in the

United States, in this country, and elsewhere, and an article on this subject has already been published in the Ministry of Agriculture's Journal. On present information the results obtained by the system are not yet sufficiently definite to justify a recommendation to horticulturists in this country, but I will continue to keep the position under review.

Sir Francis Fremantle: What is hydroponics?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is the soil-less cultivation of plants.

Sir J. Lucas: As all that is required is water and a few chemicals could not some enterprising body like the Tottenham Corporation be asked to try the experiment?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I do not think it is quite so simple as that.

WOOD-PIGEONS.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the serious losses in food production caused by wood-pigeons; and whether, in order to assist vegetable production in gardens and allotments, he will move parks and woods authorities, such as the Corporation of the City of London and the London County Council, to organise shoots and other means of lessening the menace?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am fully aware of the damage done to crops by wood-pigeons and a countrywide campaign against this pest has been conducted this season with the co-operation of the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association, the Forestry Commission and the British Field Sports Society. I understand that the London County Council have arranged for their park staffs to shoot wood-pigeons in the early morning in the parks and open spaces under their control, and I hope that the publicity which this Question and answer will receive will encourage local authorities generally to take action where necessary for the destruction of these birds.

Sir P. Hurd: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in spite of any such action as he has described this pest still remains a very serious one for allotment holders and farmers?

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend issue simple instructions so that people can shoot these pests without interfering with the safe delivery of R.A.F. messages?

Mr. R. Gibson: Will crows be shot at the same time?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON RATING.

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Health whether he has reached a decision about the publication of the report of the recent Departmental Committee on Rating?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The report will be published as soon as practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to instances of hardship, especially in war-time, when men are moved from slum clearance areas to council houses far from their business or work; and can he see his way to permitting delay in cases where this would not slow up the re-housing of the population, especially where evacuated dwellings are not pulled down for months or years on account of the present state of the building trade?

Mr. Elliot: While isolated cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend may occur from time to time in the normal operations of slum clearance, I have no information to suggest that they are of frequent occurrence at the present moment. I do not think that it would be in the interest of families living in condemned houses to delay their transference to the new houses specially provided for them.

Mr. Hannah: Will it be possible in the few isolated cases of very hard conditions to make any exception?

Mr. Elliot: I am ready to consider cases put up by my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COINS (BANK PRICES).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that in the provinces, banks refuse to pay more than 20s. for gold sovereigns, and that individuals desiring to obey the instructions of the Treasury to hand their gold coins to the authorities are forced to do so through jewellers who pay varying amounts according to the profits they seek to make, he will take steps to enable the gold coins to be collected by the banks at fair prices?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am not aware that provincial banks refuse to take sovereigns except at face value. If, however, the hon. Member has any specific cases to bring forward, I shall be glad to have them examined.

Mr. Strauss: I will submit some cases.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer assure me that in the event of any one taking 100 £1 notes to the Bank of England he will be given 100 sovereigns?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CONTRACTS (PAYMENT).

Mr. Salt: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that outstanding Treasury accounts due to contracting firms continue to be delayed in settlement causing inconvenience and dissatisfaction; and will he investigate the cause of non-payment of these bills which also affects the receipts of Income Tax under the various schedules?

Mr. De la B Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in connection with small manufacturers and traders, who are endeavouring to carry through contracts for the Government, he can give some assurance that he will expedite the settling of accounts with those creditors, both small and large, whose accounts have not yet been settled?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I am aware that cases of delay in the final settlement of contractors' accounts continue to arise, but the institution of a system of generous progress payments during the currency of a contract, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member


for Yardley (Mr. Salt) on 8th February, has the effect of reducing to a minimum the balance payable on final settlement, and I am confident that causes of justifiable complaint will rapidly diminish as experience is gained by the staffs of the contractors themselves and of the purchasing Departments of State.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that there is at the present time a considerable volume of justifiable complaints and is he not sympathetic to these difficulties? The little man is in very great difficulty to-day.

Captain Crookshank: I am always sorry for the little man, but the procedure I have outlined in my reply will deal with his case just as with the case of the big man.

Mr. De la Bère: Perhaps my right hon. and gallant Friend will read the "Daily Express." He will learn a lot about it there.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS, OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action is being taken as a result of the report by the Select Committee on Publications and Debates, recommending that certain steps should be taken to increase the circulation of the Official Report through the British Broadcasting Corporation, by advertising and by circulars to libraries, clubs, societies and educative institutions?

Captain Crookshank: The matter is under consideration by the Departments concerned.

Mr. Graham White: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that there is a considerable section of the public who think that the Official Report is a private publication circulating among Members of Parliament only, and will he see that that view is effectively dispelled?

Captain Crookshank: I think the Questions which have been asked in this House recently ought to help in that direction.

Mr. Mander: Can the Minister say how soon he hopes to be able to announce the Government's decision on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: But is not the country already suffering from boredom as one of its principal complaints?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRICES.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the fact that the average price of coal purchased by the Northmet Power Company has increased since 1936 by 44 per cent.; and what is the cause of so large an increase in the price of coal in so short a time?

Mr. James Stuart: I have been asked to reply in the absence of my hon. Friend, who is indisposed. The Secretary for Mines has seen a report that the average price of coal purchased by the Northmet Power Company had increased between 1936 and August, 1939, by the amount stated. As regards the second part of the Question, he would point out that over the period concerned there was a general increase in the price of coal due to the increased demand which was largely concentrated on the types of coal used by electricity works. In addition, however, he understands that after 1936 the Northmet Power Company replaced a substantial proportion of their supplies by higher quality coals.

Sir W. Davison: Is not this an enormous increase, 44 per cent.? I understand that the nature of the coal was very much the same between 1936 and 1939, and 44 per cent. increase is astonishing.

Mr. Stuart: I will ask my hon. Friend to look into this matter.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not the case that this increase is entirely the result of the selling scheme under the Coal Mines Act, 1930?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

WAR MATERIALS (EIRE).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the fact that certain raw materials and other supplies required by Great Britain and Northern Ireland for war purposes are being diverted to the neutral state of Eire, he will immediately take steps to see that all


materials and supplies needed for the successful prosecution of the war are conserved for utilisation in war work within the United Kingdom?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Colonel Llewellin): From the information available, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the arrangements for acquiring supplies essential to the prosecution of the war and for controlling their re-export from Great Britain and Northern Ireland are operating efficiently. If my hon. Friend has some particular case in mind, I shall be glad to investigate this if he will be so good as to furnish details.

Dr. Little: Will the Minister give an assurance that no materials or supplies required for our own purposes will be diverted under any circumstances to neutral countries?

Colonel Llewellin: The main supplies that we part with to Southern Ireland are fertilisers, to enable them to grow food, a large part of which comes back to this country.

CIVIL BUILDING SCHEMES.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Supply whether, with a view to maintaining the framework of the building industry, he will consider relaxing the ban on civil building to allow a small well-distributed flow of work to proceed?

Colonel Llewellin: So far as the Ministry of Supply is concerned, no ban has been placed on civil building, except in so far as arises out of inability to release, for allocation by the Departments immediately concerned, more than a limited quantity of certain materials used in building which are in short supply. As regards this aspect of the matter, I am replying to another question by the hon. Member on the subject of timber.

TIMBER CONTROL.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the shortage of deliveries of timber is preventing the completion of work already in progress and the carrying out of essential building schemes and repair work; and whether some supplies of con trolled timber can now be released for the execution of such work?

Colonel Llewellin: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to a Question by the hon. Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) on 21st March. I can hold out no hope of the early release of larger quantities of timber than at present.

GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (CONTRACTS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether his attention has been called to the waste and extravagance now going on in the construction of a north western Government factory to which his attention has been drawn, and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to what has already become elsewhere a scandal?

Colonel Llewellin: I am unable to accept the allegations made by the hon. Member, but if he would care to furnish me with full particulars of any waste and extravagance in connection with the construction of the factory referred to, I will have the matter investigated.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure this House that the ridiculous system employed by the War Office in the construction of Militia camps, payment of a fee, plus cost, plus extra fee, will not be continued in connection with the 37 or 50 factories, or whatever it is, which the Ministry of Supply contemplate constructing?

Colonel Llewellin: We are bound to go upon that basis where the factory is needed very quickly and the full design is not ready when the order is given to start. Only in exceptional cases are we adopting the method to which the hon. Member referred, and which I appreciate has some grave disadvantages, but we must complete some of these factories with the utmost speed.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that far greater supervision and control, especially with regard to cost are exercised by the Ministry of Supply than have been exercised by the War Office?

Colonel Llewellin: All I can say on that is that we are seeing that effective control is exercised wherever we put that system into force.

ALUMINIUM (SECONDARY ALLOYS).

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Minister of Supply by what authority his Depart-


ment permit certain big firms to use scrap material in the manufacture of light alloys and why smaller firms are forbidden its use?

Colonel Llewellin: The use of secondary aluminium alloys is controlled under the provisions of the Control of Aluminium (No. 4) Order, 1939. Licences have been granted to a large number of firms to purchase secondary aluminium alloys and I am not aware of any discrimination between large and small firms in this respect. If, however, my hon. Friend would care to furnish me with particulars of any cases which he has in mind, I will certainly make inquiries.

Mr. Adams: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the rolling mills are using scrap? Is not a concern at Slough also using scrap in the production of casting alloys, on the authority of the Air Ministry?

Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind and likes to speak to me about them, or write, I certainly shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. De la Bère: Why should there be one law for the big man with big money and another law for the little man with little money?

Colonel Llewellin: I believe I said that I knew of no discrimination between the large firms and the small firms—I suppose they are big men and little men.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not very desirable lo have fair play all round?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (DISTRIBUTION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether a reasonable share of Government building work is being distributed in the northern area of England and local architects are being engaged in carrying out such contracts?

Mr. Grimston: I have been asked to reply. Sites for the building schemes which are being carried out by His Majesty's Office of Works are selected with regard to the requirements of the Departments for whom the buildings are being provided, which precludes distribution on a purely geographical basis. Up to the present,

the architectural staff of that Department has, on the whole, been sufficient to deal with the work, although in certain suitable cases local architects have been employed.

Mr. Adams: The Minister does not appear to have answered my Question.

Mr. Grimston: If the hon. Gentleman will read the answer I think he will see that his Question has been met; in any case, he will see that it is largely a matter of opinion.

Mr. Adams: We cannot have an answer, then?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MEAT.

Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food how soon he will be able to set up the tribunals appointed to consider complaints against the present arrangements for slaughtering; and whether he is aware that the delay in setting up these tribunals is causing great dissatisfaction?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) on this subject.

POTATO PRODUCTS.

Sir Annesley Somerville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what plans, and in which potato-growing districts, have been settled for converting surplus potatoes into farina, starch, and potato-flour, with the intention of producing additional home-grown food, and being prepared with plans, without having to make decisions in a hurry and at the last moment, to provide work for demobilised men immediately on the cessation of hostilities?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One of the factories, at Wisbech, has been in existence for several years. Another, at Skelmersdale, Lancs, was recently completed and is now ready for production. Sites for three of the new factories have been chosen at Dundee, Selby, and Boston respectively, all centres of large potato-growing districts. The site of the remain-


ing factory is still under consideration. The present intention is that all the new factories will be employed wholly on the production of potato meal for animal feeding stuffs, but they can be used, if necessary, for the manufacture of meal for human consumption. No decision has yet been reached with regard to farina manufacture or other starch products, but the question of providing or adapting factories for that purpose is still under consideration. With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, the arrangements now being made are directed to meeting requirements during the war period.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: When will the hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement as to the ownership of these factories, the financial arrangements under which they are to be conducted and what control, if any, the State will exercise on them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to be able to make a statement after a short period; meanwhile I can say that the flour will be the property of the Ministry of Food.

PIGS (EAR-MARKING).

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can now make any further statement as to the cessation or modification of the present system of marking pigs?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the answers given to my hon. Friends the Members for South Kensington (Sir William Davison) and Cambridge (Lieut.-Commander Tufnell) on 14th and 21st March respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE (UNITED STATES EXPORTS).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that the exports from the United States of America in the four months, September to December, 1939, to the United Kingdom and France combined only increased by 22,000,000 dollars as compared with the same period of 1938, while the exports to areas bordering Germany, that is, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Italy, and the Soviet Union, increased by

110,000,000 dollars, thus off-setting the reduced exports of 56,000,000 dollars to Germany by 54,000,000 dollars; and what steps are being taken to stop the leaks in the blockade shown by these figures?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Cross): In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I agree that the value of exports from the United States of America in the four months, September to December, 1939, to the United Kingdom and France, showed an increase of 22,000,000 dollars, as compared with the same period of 1938; but, according to my information, the value of exports to the neutral countries enumerated in the Question increased by only 68,000,000 dollars, and not 110,000,000 dollars, during the period under review. With regard to the second part of the Question, the statistical position of imports into contiguous neutral countries is under constant review, but it cannot be assumed that an increase in exports from any one exporting country to a series of contiguous neutral countries over a short period necessarily implies that a leak in the blockade has taken place.

Sir H. Williams: Where is all this stuff going that passes into neutral countries, and that used not to go there before the war?

Mr. Cross: I cannot accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that these countries used not to receive the import of these materials before the war. The only thing we can do is to make a comparison of their imports from all sources in peace-time with their imports from all sources during a period of war.

Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to circulate the statement so that we may have the information?

Mr. Cross: I am having the position analysed and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us the business of the House for next week?

The Prime Minister: The business will be:
Tuesday—Committee and remaining stages of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Amendment Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Special Enactments (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday—Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill; Report and Third Reading of the Societies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Thursday—Supply, Committee (4th Allotted Day), Vote for the Ministry of Economic Warfare; a Debate on the conduct of the economic war will take place.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to Wednesday's business, I desire to give notice that we should like to raise a discussion, if there is time, upon the suspension of the Civil Service examinations. In regard to Thursday's business, in view of the great importance of the economic warfare and the difficulty of discussing it fully in public, we ask that the Session should be secret on that day. May I ask the Prime Minister also whether he will state for what purpose it is proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-day?

The Prime Minister: I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition has said. With regard to the Secret Session, I recognise that the subject is one of great importance and one which it might be difficult to debate in public. I shall be very glad to make the necessary arrangements for a Secret Session. The only reason for proposing to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-day is that we desire to obtain the Committee stage of the Societies (Miscellaneaus Provisions) Bill, the Committee stage of the Special Enactments (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords], and the Committee and remaining stages of the Solicitors (Emergency Provisions) Bill [Lords]. The suspension Motion is a precautionary measure; there is no intention of asking the House to sit late.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACTS.

3.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move,
That the draft of the Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, entitled the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved.
The Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee is required by law to submit a report to the Minister before the end of February upon the financial condition of the Fund at the end of the previous December. As the House is aware, complete responsibility for determining the extent to which there may be a disposable surplus in the Fund or a deficit, rests upon the Committee. If there is a surplus the Committee recommend to the Minister how that surplus shall be used. Parliament, of course, are not bound by the recommendations of the Committee, nor are the Government obliged to follow them, although if the Government differ from the Committee as to the use to which the surplus is to be put they must tell the House the reason why they differ. The Minister, however, is obliged to accept the view of the Committee as to the amount of the surplus available, and he can only make recommendations for its use which have financially the same effect on the Fund as the recommendations proposed by the Committee. It is also open to the Committee to recommend for the reduction of debt the use of sums belonging to the general account and held as reserves to meet future expenditure. If this is done there is then a reduction of the subsequent half-yearly payments on account of interest and sinking fund charges which are due on the debt. In so far as the reduction of debt is provided for in this way out of reserves, there is power to reborrow if this becomes necessary in the future, and that is subject only to the condition that the debt should not then be raised above the level at which it would have stood had no such repayment been made.
The report of the General Account shows that for the calendar year ended 31st December last the income exceeded

the expenditure by £16,601,578, and there was a net balance at the end of the year of £57,555,222. On the other hand, the debt of the Fund at the same date was just over £77,000,000. The position of the Fund at the end of the year was very much better than had been anticipated by the Committee a year ago, and the Committee point out that the recent improvement in the account is the result of more employment, due chiefly to expenditure on defence. The Committee, however, give it as their view that it is as certain as any prophecy can be that there will be a severe rise of unemployment after the war. In these circumstances, the Committee have come to the conclusion that they cannot say that the Fund is insufficient nor that it is more than sufficient, and that they will be carrying out what appears to them to be the policy of Parliament if they recommend using part of the accumulated balance of the Fund to reduce the debt. Accordingly, the Committee recommend in their report that a sum of £37,000,000 should be allocated to the repayment of debt, bearing in mind, of course, that the reborrowing powers to which I have already referred will continue to be available. The effect of this transaction will be to set free from the fund a sum of £1,100,000 a year.
The House may, perhaps, wonder how it is that the repayment of a debt of £37,000,000 by drawing upon reserves which are invested and bringing in revenue can have any effect at all upon the income of the Fund. The answer to that is twofold. In the first place the Fund is paying 3⅛ per cent. interest on the long-term loan which they obtained, while they are only receiving an amount of about 2 per cent. on the reserves which they hold and which in the ordinary course of sound business they are obliged to invest in short-term and medium-term securities. Of course, it is necessary that the Fund should have at its disposal securities which can readily be realised at any time. In addition to this saving of about 1 per cent. per annum on £37,000,000, the repayment of the capital also saves the Fund from the necessity of making the provision of 2 per cent. per annum as a sinking fund on that part of the money which is repaid. We thus obtain a saving of 1 per cent. in interest and 2 per cent. in sinking fund on the total of £37,000,000, and hon. Members will be able to calculate that that gives


a total saving to the Fund of £1,100,000 per annum.
The next task of the Committee was to determine how they should advise the Minister to use this sum of £1,100,000, and they decided to recommend in their report that the rate of benefit in respect of each of the first two dependent children should be raised from 3s. a week to 4s. a week; and the draft Order which is before the House to-day is for the purpose of implementing this proposal. This proposal on the part of the Committee was unanimous, although I should point out that there was in the report a note of reservation by one of the seven members of the Committee, Mr. Thomson, who says that he would have preferred to have paid off £10,000,000 instead of £37,000,000 and to have raised the general rate of benefit by 2s. 6d. a week, as he does not feel that the heavy incidence of unemployment after the war which is anticipated by the Committee is a matter which should be dealt with by unemployment insurance benefit. I put his view before the House. These suggestions, however, would have involved very large sums of money, and Mr. Thomson joins with his six colleagues on the Committee in signing the report. I am sure the House will welcome, as the Government welcome, the recommendation to increase the children's allowances. I might point out here that the recommendation to pay off debt does not require the specific approval of Parliament, and so it is not provided for in the terms of the draft Order which is now before the House.
Hon. Members will, however, observe that Section 3 of the Order deals with the Agricultural Account which, as the House will remember, is a separate Account altogether. The Committee concluded that there was on that Account a disposable surplus sufficient to justify an increase of benefit for the children equivalent to that proposed in the General Account, and in order to make this arrangement effective it is necessary to raise the maximum limit of total benefit from 33s. to 35s. Those two recommendations have the unanimous support of the Committee.
There is one other matter on which I should like to say a word in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It

has been suggested, so I am told, that the reason for the repayment of this £37,000,000 is to set the sum free for the purposes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that this is the real object of the transaction. Even if that were so, I do not know that the House would, in time of war, object to such a proposal, but in fact there is no substance whatever in that suggestion. The Treasury does not gain by this transaction at all. At the moment the Treasury has the use of that £37,000,000, since it is invested entirely in Government securities, and after the £37,000,000 has been repaid the Treasury will still have the use of it.

Mr. Graham White: But they will not have to pay interest.

Mr. Assheton: The Fund, of course, will not receive interest on £37,000,000 of the investments, nor will it have to pay interest on the £37,000,000 which it is repaying. Anyhow, it happens that we have this £1,100,000available for use at the time. The Government have decided to accept all the proposals of the Statutory Committee, and the House is being asked to-day to approve the terms of the draft Order. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will share in the pleasure which my right hon. Friend and I have in being able to make a proposal which increases the children's benefit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some children's benefit."] Yes, some children's benefit, and I feel sure that it will meet with the whole-hearted approval of the great majority of the Members of the House.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That", to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
having considered the Report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund, this House is of opinion that the circumstances would fully justify the abolition of the waiting period, an all-round increase in benefits, and a modification of the anomalies regulations with respect to married women.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given us a plain, straightforward, business account of this matter, and the House will be grateful to him for having stated the financial position as disclosed in the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee very clearly, so that we need not waste time with that. I


think it is desirable at the beginning to make this point. This is the report of a Committee which, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, need not be accepted by the Government or by this House; and I hope it will not be accepted by the House and that the Amendment which I am moving will carry a majority in the Division Lobby to-night. It is essential to say that, because there is a growing tendency on the part of this House to regard these committees, set up outside, as being bodies with some kind of supernatural power, whose words, like Holy Writ, must be accepted. I have no doubt that the members who compose this Committee are all of them men of wide experience and some of them men of very great reputation, and they are deemed to be a committee of experts. Experts can go wrong, and I believe that these experts have gone wrong, and not only so, but I hope to be able to prove that to the satisfaction of the majority of the Members of this House.
Therefore, I want this House to approach this problem to-day and not to shirk its duty or to hide behind the report of the Committee. Part of the usefulness of a committee of this kind to many hon. Members opposite is that it gives them what is called in modern language a "get-away." They do not want to vote against increasing benefits to unemployed persons, and it gives them a good excuse when they can say, "We had to vote for the report of the Committee of experts, to whom, of course, we must bow." Well, we need not accept the report, and I propose therefore to subject the Committee's report to an examination. The Parliamentary Secretary accepted it at its face value and gave no time to discussing the reasons behind the report, as stated in the report, and of those factors which weighed with the Committee. I propose to deal with the report, with the reasoning behind it, and with the policy which the Committee obviously is going to pursue for the rest of the war.
First of all, the Committee are at very great pains to explain how it comes about that in the year which ended on 31st December, 1939, the Fund found itself with a surplus of £16,000,000. The Committee were bound to seek to explain that, for the simple reason that they are a committee of experts, and what I shall say

shows that experts can go very far wrong. The Committee made an estimate as to what would be the condition of the Fund at the end of the year, and their estimate was that the Fund would work out during the year in such a way that the expenditure would exceed the income by £8,250,000. When the funds came to be balanced at the end of the year, instead of there being an adverse balance of £8,000,000, there was a net revenue balance of over £16,000,000, so that on the year's working the estimate of the Committee was £25,000,000 out. That, I think, is in itself proof that we are dealing with the report of fallible men, and not with the report of infallible experts. The Committee are anxious to try and prove how this situation developed and how the Fund at the end of the year had this very big balance instead of a loss as they had forecast, and they seek to explain that by stating that 1939 was an abnormal year and that during it there was so much war activity as to have made this surplus possible.
It would be idle to pretend that the amount of unemployment in the year 1939 was not affected by war expenditure. At the same time we do well to remember that the war began only in September, and that there had been a good seven months of normal activity, using the word "normal" as we have used it in the last few years, before the war broke out; and while we agree that war activity played its part during that year in improving employment and in decreasing unemployment, and therefore producing this balance, we do not accept the Committee's contention that all this balance is due to war conditions. We contend that it is only partially due to them and that therefore they ought not to regard this balance as completely and entirely a war balance, but that some of it—we think a large portion of it—ought to be available for the purposes which we indicate in our Amendment.
I see that the Minister of Labour is busy taking notes, and I presume that later he will intervene to reply. I should like, on this problem of whether the improvement in employment which has effected an improvement in the Fund was due, as the Committee suggest, almost entirely to war activity, to call the Minister of Labour into the witness box. I will not quote him on oath, but I will


quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, and we will put him in the dock before the evening is over.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): You will not be the judges.

Mr. Griffiths: No, the country will be the judges, one of these days. On 3rd August last my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) spoke, and the Minister of Labour followed him, and during the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to claim and sought to prove that the improvement in the employment position last year was not due to war activity but was due to his wise administration and to the policy of the Government. He said:
We are now in the midst of a movement, quite apart from the armaments movement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1939; col. 2693, Vol. 350.]
The Minister apparently accepts that, and therefore he accepts our contention that if there was an employment movement unrelated to the armaments movement up to August of last year, at least a part—we say a substantial part—of the surplus was accumulated owing to normal activities and not to war activities. That is our first point. Now I will discuss the reasoning behind this report and behind the policy which the Committee have adopted in making these recommendations. The Committee, believing that this activity is due to the war, devote a considerable amount of attention in their report to this problem. They are obsessed by the fear that at the end of this war there will be severe unemployment and that the readjustment which will have to be made then will be of such a character as to create an amount of unemployment which I do not think I am misquoting them—certainly it is the spirit if not the letter of their report—when I say that it will, if anything, be even more severe than the calamitous unemployment which we experienced at the end of the last war.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Member has misquoted the Committee there. The words they use are these:
For the reason given below it is possible that unemployment was not fully recorded, but there was also no doubt a demand on urgent work postponed during the war. After the end of the present war the rise of unemployment

may not be as great as in 1921 and 1922, and it may be possible to take action to keep it within bounds.

Mr. Griffiths: If I went through their report and picked out a paragraph here and a paragraph there, I could make these experts contradict themselves many times over, but I am thinking of the main body of the report. They do say that at the end of the war there will be severe unemployment. Paragraph 13 of their report begins in this way:
A more important line of approach is to consider, not how the Fund reached its present position, but, as far as we can, what are the prospects for the future. What is likely to be the effect of war and of what may happen after the war upon unemployment insurance?
Later on they use the phrase "severe unemployment" as likely to follow the end of this war. There are two aspects of this matter that we want to raise, because they are aspects of public policy and of Government policy. The first is this: We contend that it is the duty of the Government to prepare now and to plan now to ensure that the readjustment, the switch-over from a war economy to a peace economy, is made in a planned and organised fashion. It is their business to do that now, and I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. The Government accept the Committee's report, and I take it therefore that they accept not merely their recommendations but the whole reasoning behind the report, because you cannot dissociate the recommendations from the reasons.
Therefore, do the Government accept the position that this problem of readjustment, colossal as we know it will be, must be left to work itself out, without plan and without preparation, or do the Government accept the view, which we seek to put forward and which we have put forward almost from the very first week of the war, that it is the business of the Government now, not later on, to prepare plans, detailed, specific plans, by which this colossal problem can be solved and this transition can be bridged without calamitous unemployment such as we had at the end of the last war? The Committee warn the Government that they will be courting disaster if they allow this tremendous problem to arise without an organised plan to meet it. There are the millions who will come from the Forces when the war is over, not to speak of millions more who are now being drawn


into the war machine in various ways. Unless there is a planned scheme, that will result in a social upheaval of the worst kind. I hope the Minister can tell us that there is some Minister or some Department already charged with the task of making preparations to deal with that problem. If the Government have not already taken such steps, I do not think that they are doing justice to the problem or doing their duty to the country.
Let us assume that there will be severe unemployment, which may be either exacerbated or eased by the kind of Government policy which prevails. Is it right that this Insurance Fund, which was created and designed to carry the insurance risk of normal cyclical unemployment, should be burdened with the effect of unemployment caused by a social upheaval? In the paragraph of the Committee's report from which I have already quoted, they say that at the end of the war there is going to be severe unemployment: there will be this great social upheaval, this great transition from a war economy to a peace economy; and they ask, how can we meet that now? I ask, is it fair to expect an insurance Fund of this kind to meet such a risk? I would remind the Minister of Labour that it is his Government which was responsible for this division of unemployment into two sections; first, an Insurance Fund, which carries its own burden, which we are discussing to-day, and, secondly, the Unemployment Assistance Board, which was designed to meet, subject to a means test, unemployment which is abnormal. The Government ought to accept the full implications of the distinction they have made. This Fund, designed to meet normal unemployment, should not be expected to carry a burden due to a social upheaval. We share the view expressed in the reservation made by Mr. Thomson:
The heavy incidence of unemployment anticipated on the cessation of munitions production on the present scale is a matter which should be dealt with in another way than by unemployment insurance benefit.
That is a fair contention. This Fund ought not to carry a burden of that kind. There should be a public policy to prevent unemployment becoming calamitous, or, if it does become calamitous, the burden should be placed on the State. Although there are three parties to the Fund, the workers, the employers, and the State, the heaviest burden falls on

the workers. In some industries—in the one that I know best, for instance—not only do the workers pay their contributions, but the contributions of the employers go into the ascertainment to weigh down the workers' wages. We believe that the Committee have been actuated, and that their report has been determined, by considerations which ought not to have governed them in deciding what should be done with this Fund. We do not think that, as custodians of this Fund, they should have asked themselves, in 1939, what should be put on one side to meet this cataclysm of the war. If they had approached the problem in another way, without these obsessions, and had remembered that a substantial part of the Fund was created in normal times, they would have asked themselves: For what was this Fund created, and what shall we do with this surplus?
We believe that the proposals of Mr. Thomson are very much wiser and fairer than those of the majority. They proposed that £37,000,000 of this debt should be repaid in one year. I am not going to argue this very old question as to whether the debt should be placed on this Fund or not. It has been argued many times in this House, and we consider that it should not. But for years the scales and the rate of unemployment benefit have been weighted down by the debt contracted in the last social upheaval. Now the Committee wish to weight it down still further, with the debt which may be contracted during the next social upheaval. People will find the rate of unemployment benefit kept at miserably low standards because of those two burdens, neither of which ought to be placed on a fund of this kind. The recommendations which were made by Mr. Thomson were urged, not only this year but in previous years, by the great trade union movement.
We say that not more than £10,000,000 ought to go to debt redemption, and that the balance ought to be used to meet the needs of the unemployed at the present time. We propose, first, that the waiting period should be abolished; secondly, that there should be an all-round increase in the scales of benefit; and, thirdly, that those anomalies under which married women contributors to the Fund have been penalised for years should now be removed. This principle of a waiting


period is based on an assumption which could be made by no one who was familiar with working-class life in this country; and that is why we should not always accept the recommendations of experts, who are naturally remote from the lives of the people. When the question was last considered by the Committee, they reduced the waiting period from six days to three days. It is thought that when a man becomes unemployed there is a period during which he can live without benefit, and that, therefore, this period is justified. There is something of the old penalty spirit about this waiting period. There are tens of thousands of homes in this country where this gap inflicts great hardship upon a man and his wife and children.
There are no margins in working-class homes—how could there be? Their budgets every week have to be fitted in to the last halfpenny. When there is a gap of three days, or often more, without benefit, it is a great hardship. One of my hon. Friends, representing a constituency in the North of England, said to me this morning that during the recent severe weather the coalpits in the area that he represents had been badly affected by difficulties in connection with shipping and transport and that there had been slow time and intermittent working as a result. He had made a calculation for a number of pits, and he found that for 16 per cent. of the lost time no benefit was paid. That was during a period when the weather was so severe and the cost of living was increasing.

Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Member say what would be the cost to the Fund of each of the three proposals he puts forward?

Mr. Griffiths: The cost of abolishing the waiting period has not been estimated by the Commitee; but in 1936, when the period was reduced from six days to three, the Committee estimated that the cost of that change was £1,250,000 per annum. At that time, the level of unemployment was 16·5 per cent., and the number of persons in insurable employment was considerably less than it is to-day. Therefore, it is safe to argue that it would certainly not cost more to abolish the waiting period altogether in a year when there is a net surplus of £57,000,000.

Mr. Lipson: I am not quarrelling with the hon. Member's demand.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope the hon. Member will do more than not quarrel with it.

Mr. Lipson: Wait and see.

Mr. Griffiths: Secondly, we say that at this time the Committee should really have paid more attention to the inadequacy of the scales, and particularly to the relationship of the scales to the cost of living. They admit that that is not an irrelevant question, but apparently they completely forgot it when they considered how this £57,000,000 should be used. No one will argue in this House, not even the Minister of Labour, who has argued all kind of things at that Box, that unemployment benefits to-day are adequate. The righthon. Gentleman did not argue that they were adequate before the war. There are the figures of the Minister of Food, or perhaps I should have said the late Minister of Food. Ministers change so often nowadays that it is difficult to keep track of them. The Minister of Labour does not change because he does a job that many of his colleagues would not do. It is admitted that the scales were inadequate prior to the war breaking out, and it was admitted in the figures put forward by the Minister of Food in the House this week that the cost of living had increased by 17 per cent. since the beginning of the war. If unemployment benefit scales were inadequate before the war, how much more inadequate are they now? Surely this Fund ought to be for the benefit of those who made it; more attention ought to be paid to them than to future contributors, even in 1960 or 1970. More attention should be paid to those who have helped to build up the Fund with their hard-earned money, and who are now suffering from unemployment. In spite of the reduction in the figures of unemployment, there are still nearly 1,250,000 unemployed in this country. When the workers become unemployed wages stop, and they are entirely dependent upon these insurance benefits, which, on the Government's figures, are 17 per cent. below their pre-war value. Therefore we urge that the scale should be raised.
We believe that the proposal put forward by the Committee—I do not say this offensively—to increase the benefit


for the first two children only is an insult to the unemployed in this country. When are we going to cease in this House creating scales of children's allowances each one of which treats one child different from another? In a few weeks' time the Government will be coming to this House and proposing that each child of an injured person shall receive the scale of allowances. Here the Committee suggest that the first two children only shall have an increase of 1s. We say that at least every child of the unemployed man ought to have the 1s. increase now, and we believe that the Fund can meet such a charge. It is estimated that to give the first two children an increase of 1s. in benefit will cost £1,100,000. In 1936 the Committee discussed the problem of increasing children allowances and estimated that, if they increased the benefit in respect of every child by 1s. per week, the cost in a year would be £1,345,000. The cost, therefore, of amending their recommendations of 1s. to the first two children to 1s. for each child would be roughly £250,000.
There is a balance of £57,000,000 in the Fund, and £37,000,000 of it is a disposable surplus. There is no obligation to repay the debt. The £37,000,000 is at the disposal of the Committee to make what use of it they like. Mr. Thomson suggested that there should be an increase of 2s. 6d. It is difficult to estimate how much that would cost, but it is obvious that the cost to the Fund of a 2s. 6d. increase would be very much less than before, and there is all the more reason for giving it when it is remembered that the Committee estimate that during this year there will be another great surplus. Having regard to the inadequacy of the scales a large share of the sum which could be made available ought to be used for increasing the scales. If £10,000,000 of the debt were paid off, there would be £27,000,000 left which would enable a very big increase to be made in Unemployment Benefit all round, to the man, to his dependent wife, and to every child. We believe that at this time it would be the right thing to do, and the opportunity ought to have been taken to wipe out the anomaly with regard to married women, who have helped to build up the Fund. I have just been reading Sir John Orr's new book, and I will conclude by quoting one of the first sentences in that book. We

are engaged as a nation in a life-and-death struggle in a totalitarian war. We have now 1,250,000 people unemployed, including those temporarily stopped and casuals, but everybody counts in this war. The second sentence in that book says:
Victory will depend as much on the morale and powers of endurance of the civilian population as on the efficiency of the Fighting Forces. Morale and powers of endurance cannot be maintained unless the whole population is on a diet good enough to maintain it in health.
He says the whole population, and we are now discussing the condition of one-tenth of our population to-day—the submerged tenth, the unwanted tenth, the forgotten tenth—and in this great national effort our ultimate victory will depend upon their morale as well. How can that be maintained on their present miserable standard, with prices of food going up? As an old miner, it made me almost ashamed of my country when I heard an hon. Member state in this House that unemployed constituents of his were paying 1s. for 28 lbs. of coal, or at the rate of £4 per ton. I know something about coal. That is criminal exploitation. The poor people have not only had to put up with the severity of the weather, but they are having to put up with the evil consequences of the war. If the Government had real social imagination—we know that they have not got it—and realised the problem confronting them, they would throw out this Order and accept the Amendment which I have moved this afternoon.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has argued with force and great ability in favour of the Amendment which he has moved, and has spoken strongly in favour of increased benefits, of the abolition of the waiting period and of the modification of the anomalies in the regulations with regard to married women, all of them aspects of the question of unemployment insurance benefit which, taken individually, would, I think, meet with the commendation and approval of the House of Commons as a whole. I must say that I find myself in some little difficulty with regard to the Amendment, because the Parliamentary Secretary remindedus that under the Act of 1938, in Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Committee, in recommending whether or not


the Fund was likely to be reasonably sufficient to meet its obligations, were entitled to take into account their borrowing powers, and also, that the part of the recommendation which deals with the repayment of debt does not require the confirmation of the House of Commons. Therefore, whatever attitude we may take with regard to the Amendment to-day, the part which deals with the repayment of debt is bound to be carried out, and consequently these other things which some of us would like to achieve cannot be carried out through normal Parliamentary procedure. However that may be, the hon. Member for Llanelly has done well in raising the major matter of policy and in dwelling to a great extent, and very forcibly, upon the expressed opinion by the Committee as to the course of unemployment when war comes to an end.
They say, as far as any prophecy can be certain, that the end of this war is likely to be followed, as in the case of the previous war, by serious unemployment. That is an expression of opinion which is probably as good as any other opinion, and it may be better than any other opinion, and we are entitled to say to the Government that, out of the mouths of their own appointed advisers, they have been warned. I hope that there will be no inclination on the Government benches to regard that warning as something which may not materialise. If this warning of the Committee is simply to be met with the reply, "We must deal with these matters after the war in the light of the circumstances which then prevail," then, of course, we shall have to deal with them in the light of the circumstances which then prevail. But the fact that the Government have been warned will, I hope, cause them to take every step to see that such a situation does not arise. The mere fact that we have an effective system of social insurance in this country is very important. The more perfect it is and the more adequate the benefits, the more stable will be the day-to-day expenditure of the people as a whole, and the less likely it will be that catastrophic unemployment will overtake us. I remember reading the comparisons between the devastating effect of the slump of 1931 in the United States of America and in this country, when it was pointed out that in America

the effects were much more catastrophic than in this country. The advantage enjoyed by this country was due—however unsatisfactory it might have been individually—to the fact that there was a great volume of expenditure going on week after week in this country which prevented the level of unemployment rising above a certain figure.
There are many things which can be done, but which it would not be in order to discuss on this Amendment. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Government to the effect that, although they have been warned, they are accepting the warning and are doing everything conceivable to prevent such a situation arising. We heard a short time ago that the Minister of Health was to send a questionnaire to all local authorities in the country making specific inquiries as to what capital expenditure they had in view which could be brought into operation at the end of the war. I hope that inquiry is not being dropped. No one can foretell what the situation will be at the end of the war. It may be grave, but clearly the difficulties are not insuperable. Provided the means of production are not completely destroyed, there is sufficient adaptability in the people of this country to reconstruct themselves and devise methods of day-to-day life on a satisfactory basis.
There was one aspect of the matter which the Statutory Committee did not mention in their report. Perhaps it was a little outside their province, but it is one to which the House may have regard, and that is that this is a totalitarian war. The number of men who will be drawn into the armaments industry in relation to the Fighting Forces is greater than in the last war, and, consequently, the distortion and dislocation of industry after the war will be much greater than they were at the end of the last war. While our opponents are determined to wage totalitarian war, we wish to achieve a total peace and set Europe free from the constant jealousies, suspicions and preparations for war which have prevailed and handicapped industrial efforts. It may be, if our best hopes are realised, that we shall have a better opportunity of creating employment than at any time during the last20 years. That is an important aspect of the matter.
Taking the report of the Statutory Committee, it is difficult to resist the con-


clusion that their financial recommendation really means little more than a book-keeping transaction. If this debt is not repaid, it means that the Fund will be paying a larger amount of interest on the overdraft than on the credit account, and that is essentially an unbusinesslike procedure. I hope the Minister will say that the steps he is now taking are of such a character that employment in this country will be total before long and that the amount of benefit paid will be of little importance. I hope the 300,000 who resumed work during the last month is merely precursory to total employment. If the Minister cannot bring about that position, with the help of his colleagues, then I hope he will be ready to hand over the task to someone who thinks he will be better able to carry it out. That is the only answer which I think will satisfy the House of Commons.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Until the Minister is able to give that answer, surely he has an obligation to see that the unemployed are kept at pre-war level, if nothing else.

Mr. White: I will not dispute that with my hon. Friend. We are all, I hope, agreed that adequate benefit should be paid to those who are entitled to it. I think this Motion does bring us up against the extraordinary difficulties which we have created for ourselves in not having any unified authority to consider the social services as a whole. In the course of this report the Committee says it received evidence from the Employers' Federation, which asked for a reduction in contributions as an offset against the increased contributions to be paid for pensions. This question is not one to be decided on a request from employers, or by the Ministry of Health. That is not the way to go about a problem which can only be dealt with by an authority which is entitled to take account of all these necessities after they have had an inquiry into what is the reserve contribution capacity in this country, and when the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Labour have decided as to the right use of the benefits to be derived. This report, in several of its aspects, clearly shows the orderly state of the social services of this country. Perhaps I ought not to say disorderly, as it suggests something of a disreputable character, so I will say that the way in which these transactions are

carried out by one Department, without reference to another, is ill-ordered. I would be glad to hear the Minister say that he had had an inquiry, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, into what is the reserve contributory capacity in this country and what benefits ought to be derived from it.
As to the increased contributions which were recommended by the Committee and accepted by the Government with regard to children, I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is another example of the extraordinary confusion into which our allowances as a whole have fallen. We have one allowance for unemployment insurance, another for unemployment assistance, another for orphans, another for dependants and widows, another for evacuees, and so on. This fact to face with the proposition advanced in the House the day before yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who pointed out that in working-class households it was not a question whether the cost of living had gone up by 17, 18 or 20 per cent., but of the number of mouths in the family which had to be fed. That is what determines the cost of living in these cases. This recommendation is only a bite at a fundamental problem which leads to a sense of injustice between one family and another. It can be solved only by the application of some universal system of family allowances introduced to cover everybody, on the basis of justice, and outside the wage structure of the country altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour himself must know the difficulties which the absence of such a scheme has caused in connection with the mobility of labour. There are many people now, particularly in the building industry, who are unwilling to accept transfers to other districts because they are up against the extraordinary difficulties which arise when you have a system of social assistance which recognises dependency and a wage system which does not. Men would willingly go to work in some other part of the country, but cannot do so because the Unemployment Assistance Board allowances make it impossible for them to move without doing something less than justice to their family requirements. I hope that we shall get away from piecemeal, hap-


hazard and disjointed proposals of this kind in future and that some unifying influence will be brought to bear on this problem so that some satisfactory solution will be found.
On other occasions when we have had discussions on reports of the Statutory Committee there has been one matter which has been almost invariably raised and which ought to be mentioned to-day. There was a recommendation made by the Committee in favour of something being done for the black-coated workers, but that recommendation has not been accepted by the Minister. Thirty or 40 Questions were addressed to his predecessor on this subject, which raised an all-time record for Parliamentary procrastination, and a decision on the matter has not yet been reached. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to enlighten us to-day on this particular matter, but I raise it now to show that the demand is still there. We hope that this recommendation of the Statutory Committee may be dealt with sooner or later, because it is not a matter which should be allowed to remain indefinitely in the background.
This Amendment calls for an increase of benefits and draws attention to one of the glories of our system of unemployment assistance and insurance. One can walk across to the office of the Unemployment Assistance Board and ask for a supplementary grant, this being one of the devices we introduced some time ago. I do not know whether that is the defence which the right hon. Gentleman may choose to put up to-day. The whole of this recommendation is yet another illustration of the difficulties we are in whenever these questions come to the House of Commons. They always impinge upon the claims of other Departments which are unrelated and, in some cases, competitive. One can only hope that the result of these discussions will be to see that the first post-war task which the House of Commons should be called upon to undertake is to bring into the social services some system of order which may give satisfaction to all.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has once again drawn attention, quite properly, to the need for co-ordinating

our social services, and I think there is growing opinion on all sides of the House that that is something which ought to be done. But apparently the most we can hope for in that direction is that it should be one of the first of our problems to be tackled after the war. However that may be, we have, in the meantime, to deal with the urgent problem under discussion to-day. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke with his usual eloquence and sincerity, and I do not think any unbiased listener could have felt that the question now at issue was left by that speech exactly where it had been left by the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the Motion. This is one of the rare occasions during war when the House has the opportunity of discussing a human and financial problem which has no actual contact with the war and when Members are able to approach a problem of this kind on its merits and agree or disagree with the recommendations or proposals of the Government without feeling that the Government's influence in the winning of the war is affected one way or the other. This is a very important problem, because, in spite of the welcome drop in the unemployment figures, announced to-day, there are still 1,100,000 unemployed. If you take their dependants, it means that between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 people are affected by the recommendations of the Statutory Committee.
I should have thought that this was a matter which might have been used to test the value of what is called the political party truce. Here we have the Statutory Committee with a surplus. What is to be done with that surplus? Shall some of it be devoted to the payment of debt and some to the increase of benefits to those who come under the Fund? And, if so, how much shall go to debt and how much to improving benefits? This is not a party matter; it is a financial and human problem. It is a matter on which there can be honest disagreement on both sides of the House, and it is also a matter on which there is the possibility of agreement. I could have wished, before the Government definitely decided that they would accept the recommendations of the Committee, knowing that they were bound to be unacceptable to hon. Members opposite, they


had tried to find some compromise solution by which a party vote on this issue could have been avoided. When you have these two problems, on the one hand the need to reduce the debt and, on the other hand, the urgent claims of those under the Fund, I cannot feel that the proposals of the Statutory Committee are generous enough to those who come under the Fund.
Members of Parliament every day, when they are in their constituencies, have to deal with problems of unemployment, and I think it is quite clear that the waiting period is in itself the cause of very grave hardship. When we are up against individual instances of this hardship we simply cannot justify it. In normal times it may be necessary for the finances of the Fund to have a waiting period, and it has been necessary up to the present, but when the finances of the Fund so improve that an anticipated deficit of £8,000,000 is instead a surplus of £16,000,000, I think it is time some of the features of the Fund which are unsatisfactory and involve hardship should be done away with. I wish that opportunity had been taken to use some of this surplus in this way. The same is true of the demand for an increase in the amount of benefit. Some millions of workers in this country have been granted an increase in wages since the war on account of the increase in the cost of living. Every one of these workers is financially in a very much better position than an unemployed man, and if there is a good case for increasing wages because of the increase in the cost of living to a man in employment, I think there is at least as good a case, many of us would say a stronger case, for improving the amount of benefit to those who are unemployed.
The right attitude towards the Fund is to say that it is part of its purpose to see that men are kept in such a condition of nourishment and health that when employment is available they will be physically able to take up that employment. We know from the speech of the present Secretary of State for Air, when he was Lord Privy Seal, in the early days of the war, that it is the view of the Government that there will be practically no unemployment during the war. We were told that in a comparatively short time the position would be, not that men would have to seek jobs, but that jobs

would be looking for the men. Therefore, I think the Government have a special responsibility for the unemployed until that state of things comes about. If it is their view that the great majority of the unemployed will be absorbed in employment, it is surely an additional reason for seeing that until that time comes they receive adequate benefit. I feel that a case has been made out for the use of some of the surplus of the Fund for this purpose also.
We are told that one reason why such a large amount of debt has to be paid off in one year is because it is anticipated that there will be a considerable increase in unemployment after the war, and we have to be sure that the Insurance Fund is in a sound financial position for that time. That, I submit, is a defeatist attitude to take towards post-war employment. Is that the new world which we have been promised; a world in which unemployment will be very much greater than it is now? Are we ever likely to get a peaceful world when the only time employment is good is when the nations are at war? We ought to make up our minds that unemployment and the economic position which causes unemployment and which is one of the causes of war, are problems which must be tackled, and tackled at once if we want to prevent future wars. I think that our activities would be much more usefully employed in trying to agree about a policy which will make unemployment less after the war rather than assume that unemployment is bound to increase. With the plans which are already in mind and the work which has necessarily been suspended during the war, but which local authorities will have to take up after the war, there will be quite a considerable amount of work available immediately after the war, and if we have removed from the world, as I hope we shall, the menace of war which has been hanging over it for so many years, I think we should be able to create conditions under which employment will be greater and unemployment less.
I do not think it is quite fair to assume that the right financial policy, although it may be a strictly correct financial policy, is that so much as £37,000,000 of the balance of the Fund should be devoted towards the payment of debt in one year. Although I recognise that in this


matter the House has no alternative but to accept the Committee's proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that is so far as the payment of debt is concerned—I think we can, by expressing our views, make it known that in our opinion the surplus of the Fund should be used more in the direction indicated by the Mover of the Amendment. I regret that no attempt has been made by the Government to find a compromise, some way by which Members of the House could have agreed upon proposals which would have been, to my mind, a fairer distribution of the money available. You have 1,100,000 people and their dependants who are affected by the circumstances of the war. On the other hand, you have unemployment decreasing because of the war and, therefore, the Fund in a healthier condition. I think it is only right that those who still remain the victims of unemployment and are not sharing in the improved prosperity brought about by the war should be able to get something out of the better financial position of the Fund.
So far as my own sympathies are concerned, they are entirely with the proposals of the Amendment. The proposal of the Government is that we should devote out of this surplus an increase of 1s. a week for the first two children. It seems to me indefensible to limit it to the first two children. Are we to lay it down that after the second child it does not matter whether they have enough to live upon or not? Do we want to lay it down that it is not right in the national interests or the interests of anybody else that there should be more than two children in a family? If I have to choose between a proposal of that kind and the proposals of the Amendment, I prefer the Amendment. I wish that I had not been given that dilemma and that some compromise had been arrived at between the two proposals. That would have been making good use of the party truce, but if I have to choose between the proposals, I would rather go the whole hog than accept what I think is quite insufficient.

5.13 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), but I would like to remind him that he has rather a wrong idea of the party truce. The party truce

means that we have to accept all that the Government propose and that they do not take the trouble to ascertain what we think on various questions. When we have discussed the question of these benefits on previous occasions, it has always been the reply of the Minister that we must remember that the Fund is an insurance fund and that benefits must never be paid out without due regard to the financial position of the Fund. That contention has always worked when the Fund was becoming increasingly insolvent. Now the thing is working the other way, and if the Minister accepts the argument on the one set of circumstances, he should bewilling to abide by the argument on the other set of circumstances. We have now stored up a huge Fund because the Government want a pool or reserve fund which may be used after the war, and used after the war, not to deal with the normal incidence of unemployment, but with a condition of tremendous mass unemployment. Of course, a condition of mass unemployment is not something that can be insured against, for it depends partly upon Government policy and partly upon the economic conditions of the world. One can no more insure against it than one can insure against the Day of Judgment. Therefore, when there is an enormous surplus, surely the time has arrived when the very modest proposals contained in the Amendment ought to be considered by the Government.
There is no more superb juggler with figures—and I use the term in a most complimentary sense—than the Minister of Labour. I have listened to many speeches by him; by the time he has excused one lot of figures, explained away another lot, and somehow or another put another set out of the table, one has felt that there was no unemployment problem to be dealt with. I have admired his optimism in the days of very serious unemployment. Now I am afraid his optimism will again outran the facts. It is too much taken for granted that at this time everybody can get a job, and that if he has not got a job now, he will have one by the middle of next week, so to speak. Speeches of that sort have been made for seven months, and at the end of the seven months, people are still out of work.
We are to-day dealing not with the Unemployment Assistance Board, but


with standard benefits. In the present conditions, however, there will still be pockets of unemployment, such as one gets in the area for which I speak—in distressed areas like Jarrow and South-West Durham—where for a short time the men get sufficient work to bring them under standard benefits. The older men, who are taken on only when there is a rush of work and when nobody else is available, are the first to be thrown out of work again. There will be a position in which men who have been unemployed for a long time and have come under the Unemployment Assistance Board will be worse off, if they have large families, when they come on to standard benefit again—and they will be worse off at a time when food prices are rising very rapidly. These are the people who, when in work, have paid into the Unemployment Insurance scheme as long as it has existed. If large funds are available, as is now the case, the rights of these men should be considered, and there should be an all-round increase in benefit for the people who really need it most. Obviously, until the end of the war, we are not likely to have to deal with mass unemployment. We have to deal with cases which are in themselves very difficult. The younger men will not be unemployed, but the men who have been under the Unemployment Assistance Board and who will now come back on to standard benefits, are the men who would get most advantage from an all-round increase in benefits, such as is suggested in the Amendment.
I want now to deal with that part of the Amendment which calls for a modification of the anomalies regulations with respect to married women. The married woman worker has always been very badly treated under the Unemployment Insurance scheme. I remember very well what may be called the stampede circumstances in which the anomalies regulations were tightened up in regard to married women. Tremendous pressure was put upon Miss Margaret Bondfield, who was then Minister of Labour, by the supporters of the present Government, although Miss Bondfield was not responsible for the Act under which the regulations were finally put into shape. In those days there was a pernicious doctrine that married women in work kept men with families out of work. I have never subscribed to that

doctrine, for I do not believe that statistically it is the case; but at that time, there was a growing body of unemployment and a tremendous prejudice against the married woman worker. No Minister, no matter to what party he or she may belong, operates in a vacuum; he or she has to have full regard to a situation in which there are tides of feeling that have to be taken into account. It was in such a situation that the anomalies regulations with regard to married women were drawn up. Since that time, the situation has entirely altered. The married women are being called upon to come back into industry, instead of pressure being exerted to push them out of industry. That being the case, it may be said that there is no problem because all of them can get jobs; but there is the difficulty of women who get a job, then lose it, and are then subjected to the full rigour of the anomalies regulations.
I do not think any Minister has ever tried to justify those regulations on an insurance basis; they have been justified always in social terms from the point of view of getting married women out of industry. There has been an unfortunate tendency to assume that the mere fact of marriage would render it more improbable that a woman would again get work in her own job. There have been clerical workers, for example, who have been denied standard benefit because a number of employers in the area in question have ruled that they would not employ married women. I do not want now to go into the long list of anomalies, but I want to call the Minister's attention to the general tendency, to the case-law that has been built up with regard to married women; and I want to sugget that this would be a very good time to put women in industry on the same basis as men, to say that the woman stands on her own feet, that she is a worker, that she pays into an insurance fund, and that she has a right to exactly the same privileges of insurance as a man. From that point of view, the fact of marriage is an irrelevant consideration. After marriage the woman ought not to have to serve again the whole time of employment as at present. If the Minister would do these things, I think it would use only a very small amount of the money, but it would do away with what is felt very widely to be a very considerable injustice.
With regard to children's allowances, if there is to be an increase, it ought to apply to all children. The assumption behind the present proposal is the entirely unwarranted one that the average married woman can somehow stretch any kind of income to fit any number of children. The working-class mother of small children performs miracles, but it is too much to ask her to perform the miracle of providing her children with milk, bacon, butter, vegetables, fruit, and all the other things which children need, and which are rapidly increasing in price, out of an insurance benefit that was fixed at a time when prices were much lower. Those benefits cannot be stretched indefinitely so as to give to those children the kind of nourishment which they need. In a comparatively few years, we have learned a good deal about the kind of nourishment that children need. It does not make sense to give one shilling to only two children out of a family of five. To begin with, it means that, in the case of a woman who provides the State with two children, the State rewards her by giving an increase for each of her children, but the woman who—if we are to talk about totalitarian wars—has provided her country with a larger quantity of cannon fodder is penalised in that increases are given in respect of only two of the children. That means that the 2s. may have to be spread over five children. It does not make sense.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) has called attention to the differences that exist between the various classes of children who will have to depend upon State funds of one sort and another. Those differences may be justifiable when they are looked at as figures on paper and talked about round a table, but when they are translated into the life of the small back street, where the women draw these allowances and have to make them do, the Minister has no idea of the jealousy, difficulties and friction caused by the payment of different allowances to women of exactly the same social standing, with the same economic problem to face, and the same standards with regard to their children.
There has been plenty of talk and trouble about the amount of money paid in respect of evacuees compared with the amount paid to the wife of an unemployed

man. It is possible to say that the woman who has taken in evacuees is being paid for her labour, whereas the wife of an unemployed man is not; but at a time when prices are rapidly rising, none of those things justifies the giving of an increase to only two of the children of an unemployed man. I ask the Minister whether it would have made so much difference from the point of view of the Fund if 1s. had been paid for each child. If I had to choose between the various things that are proposed, I would put an all-round increase for the children first. Men are being killed now, and if the war is intensified a whole generation of young men may be swept away; surely it is the most elementary national common sense that we should not allow the children of the nation to suffer from lack of nourishment at this time. It is no use saying that they are not doing so. Anybody who is continually in touch with unemployment in the badly-hit areas knows that to be the fact.
The Minister has taken the same view as he took when a group of Northern Members discussed with him the question of the waiting period, namely, that all he is able to do is to put into force the recommendations of the Statutory Committee. It has already been pointed out from this side, but there is no harm in underlining the fact, that that is not exactly the case. The Minister is allowed to vary the recommendations, provided he puts before the House a White Paper stating his reasons. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take into consideration such variations of these recommendations as have been put forward from this side. After all, the Members of the Labour party are closely in touch with the people who are affected by these recommendations. They are our people and we know the difficulties which they have to face. I would urge that recommendations so utterly indefensible as this recommendation about the 2s.—for which there is no argument in logic, or in statistics and certainly none on grounds of national policy—should be altered and that every child should get the extra 1s.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not intend to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) into a discussion of the question of married women, beyond saying that I dissent from her on one point and one point


only, and that was in her reference to Miss Bondfield. On the question of married women, I think the Minister has had regard to regulations which were framed some time ago and modified subsequently, and that, in view of the new industrial condition now arising and involving the employment of married women, the question of these regulations is worth further investigation. I wish, however, to enter a caveat against this report from another and a different angle. I would remind the House that this Committee and the Unemployment Assistance Board were set up largely as a result of the economy measures propounded by the National Government early in 1931. It was then that these various measures were taken. All the cuts which were then made have been restored with one exception. One cut which was made then at the expense of the working class, by way of economy, has never been restored.
I do not care how often I repeat myself, or how irritating it may be to those who say, "Here is this old story again." As long as I am privileged to be here, I shall not allow the House of Commons to forget the one great economy cut made at that time which remains as a cut at the expense of those of the working class who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed for a long period. Prior to the National Government's cuts, every person with 30 stamps to his credit was, roughly speaking, entitled to one year and four months' standard benefit. Married women, of course, were an exception. That was cut to six months—a terrific cut and one which has never been restored. As long as I am in this House, I shall insist that those people are entitled, just as much as anybody else, to the restoration of what was then taken from them. Undoubtedly this section of the unemployed ought to be restored to the position in which they were before this cut was made, and that is one of the first things that ought to be put right. The 30 stamps provision was the result of the Blanesborough Commission's report, but one does not hear of it from Sir William Beveridge or his Committee. One does not even hear of an examination of the problem, but I for one, as far as I can, will constantly try to bring the House back to this, which is, I think, one of the harshest cuts of all, because it means that men who are on standard benefit are frequently flung on to means test benefit.
Some time ago it was claimed with great glee that a concession had been made, in that the period of six months' standard benefit had been extended to 12 months for people who had fairly long records of employment. I remember the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health taking some part from the back benches in Debates about the extension of standard benefit to those who had what, I think, she called good records of employment, and all of us more or less accepted that concession as far as it went. The position then was that a person who had had, roughly, five years' steady work could receive 12 months' standard benefit. But since the war started, with hardly a minute's discussion in the House of Commons, that has been abolished. To-day the maximum which any person can get is 190 days. Here is a cut, made since the war began, with hardly any discussion in this House at all.
I have never taken the view which some people take about people with long periods of employment, but I think that, curiously enough, there is a stronger case for that concession now than there was previously. I find that the chief sufferers from unemployment now are small shopkeepers and their employés. I do not know what the position is in other cities, but in my division nearly all the small shops display, "To Let" signs. I find women who have worked in those shops for 20 or 30 years coming out of employment at ages varying perhaps from 50 to 60, and at the end of six months what is their position? Nobody appears to have known about this new regulation reducing the 12 months to six. At the end of six months, these women are astounded to find, after their good record of employment and, with the difficulty of getting new employment—nobody but the women themselves can tell how hard it is for a woman of 55 to get employment after having been 25 years in a shop—that they are faced with this terrific cut in their standard benefit. It is a very serious matter. I would ask the Minister and this Committee presided over by Sir William Beveridge to consider that case.
I have already said all I ever want to say about Sir William Beveridge. I do not pay him all the great compliments which have been paid to him by others. He is a capable man, but the idea, which


seems to be getting abroad, that he is the only man is just nonsense, and the sooner it is exploded the better. There are other men in the world just as capable as he is of adjusting these matters, and when I look at this report I say, frankly, that I believe that any civil servant in the Ministry of Labour, most of whom are capable men, could have written this report without all the jiggery-pokery of these Committee meetings and all the other ramifications of this procedure. Any intelligent civil servant could have written this report in a night—and without sitting up too late. There is a lot of planning about what is to happen after the war, but what member of this Committee knows what will happen after the war? Who has the slightest idea of when the war will end and what will be the conditions after the war?
Who knew what was going to happen at the end of the last war? Then we had, first, a terrific boom in trade. My own trade was busier at the end of the war than during the war. But after two years there came a terrific slump, which sent the unemployment figures sky-high. I do not know, with certainty, what will happen after the war, and neither does this Committee. I doubt whether the Government, with all their special knowledge, have any idea of how long the war will last. But I leave that aside, and I make my plea in the strongest manner to the Minister that something should be done to restore the 12 months' standard benefit which has been reduced to six months since the war started, in the case of those with long terms of employment. I submit that the reduction to 190 days was made without the real sanction of the House of Commons. I know that it was nominally sanctioned, but it was rushed through among a crowd of other things when Members were faced with a general war situation, and I take it that if such a proposal were brought in now, it would not be sanctioned without considerable opposition. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be raised again.
On the question of the waiting period, I agree with, and have pleaded for, the abolition of the waiting period altogether. The Minister has recently extended the period of unemployment, in connection with which the waiting period operates, from 10 weeks to 20 weeks. I would ask

him to consider a period longer than 20 weeks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will re-examine this question of the period. I admit that every time he stretches it from 10 weeks to 20 weeks or from 20 weeks to 30 weeks he is, to an extent, abolishing the waiting period for a large number of people, but I would ask him whether, if he cannot abolish the waiting period entirely, he will look into the question of extending this other period to 20 weeks.
It appears from this report that the Committee and the Government have decided to spend £1,100,000 out of their surplus and that they propose to devote £37,000,000 to the lessening of the debt. One of their arguments in support of this course is that they are getting only 2 per cent. from their investments, and the debt service is, I think, costing 3 per cent., and it is said, therefore, that there will be a saving of 1 per cent. But they enter a caveat to that proposition, because they say that if they wipe out the debt, they may have to re-borrow at much higher rates of interest at the end of the war and it seems to me that the one thing cancels out the other. I put it to the Minister whether he thinks that this sum of £1,100,000 is sufficient for the purpose to which it is to be devoted. As I have said, when it comes to a matter of trying to prophesy what is to happen at the end of the war, nobody can argue about it. I may be a simple fellow, but, frankly, I cannot follow all the intellectual arguments of people who profess to have deep knowledge of these matters. I admit that I do not know what will happen at the end of the war and when people talk to me about "homes for heroes" and all the rest of it, I sit back and say, "Maybe it is all true; maybe you know better than I do, but I propose to wait and see what turns up."
Here we are in this position. There are, roughly speaking, 700,000 people affected by this question. I believe there are about 400,000 on unemployment assistance and somewhat fewer than 700,000 on standard benefit. Could not some of this money have been devoted to other improvements? I would plead with the Minister and with this Committee to give some attention to one section of men whose case requires re-examination. I refer to that small section of the unemployed who were dealt with under the


Anomalies Act, namely, those who are called intermittent workers. I hate to appear to set one unemployed man against another or the married women against other classes. It is always awkward to do so, but I believe that the case of the intermittent worker calls for attention. I refer particularly to men who grow old before their time. You find men of 60 who are older than their years while other men of 70 appear comparatively young.
A large number of these older men to-day are taking on work—and all credit to them—at anything they can get. Some of them take on jobs as watchmen at week-ends. They work only two days a week, but if they work two days a week for 18 months, their benefit is cut on the ground that they have become intermittent workers. I ask the Minister seriously to re-examine this problem, which has become even more acute than the problem of the seasonal worker. For goodness' sake, do not discourage anybody from taking on a day's work or two days' work. It seems to me that to penalise men up in years who take on this weekend work and to cut their benefit is a miserable and mean proceeding. I would ask the Minister to re-examine the position of the intermittent worker, working a two-day or one-day week, who is frequently elderly. If the man was employed by the same employer at the same wage for three days a week he could draw standard benefit for ever. There is nothing more inconsistent. If he went to his employer and asked to be employed for another day without pay so that he could work for three days, again he would be able to draw standard benefit for ever; but because he is decent and honest and works for two days, for some unknown reason which I have never been able to fathom or follow, there is this sharp distinction drawn. I trust the Minister will re-examine this question in the light of the surplus. It would cost less than £250,000 to solve the problem of the old intermittent worker, and at a time when we have a surplus of £37,000,000 I do not think that £250,000 spent in this direction could be considered an undue amount.
We are increasing by 1s. the children's benefit. Far be it for me to depreciate anything improving anyone's condition, but when folk read in the papers of a

£37,000,000 surplus, and £6,000,000 a day being spent on war, and then you give them 1s. for a child, they look aghast and ask whether they live in another world, and whether they are the same people as we are. I started speaking on the question of unemployment insurance in these Debates, and far be it for me to deny that there has not been a gradual improvement. I admit that it has been gradually improved, and to-day marks another small improvement. It is, however, so meagre. Why do not the Government learn the lesson that when they are going to do a thing to get credit for it, they should do it right. Why should they not grant 1s. to each child, instead of taking all the decency back and making it become simply revolting? There is such a revolting feeling about the way the Government do the thing. The time has come when, as they are at least increasing the benefit by 1s., they should extend it to each independent child.
We used, at one time, to pay a man 18s. a week unemployment benefit and I would make this plea for the womenfolk. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would have done it before me, but she did not. No longer do I think there is a defence against paying an unemployed woman less than an unemployed man. I cannot see that the unemployed woman can live on less than an unemployed man; indeed, the average woman who is unemployed may actually have to spend more. A man can go about untidy, but a woman must be well dressed to get a job; and one of the urgent reforms needed now is the payment of the same unemployment benefit to a woman as to a man. We are all shouting to-day for equality of payments. When the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary entered her job she was paid at the same rate as any other Under-Secretary. When she came into this House she was paid the same as other Members of Parliament. The demand to-day is for equal work and equal pay, and the same thing should apply to the unemployed woman. She should be paid the same rate as a man, and I trust that, instead of devoting such a miserable sum for this small improvement in increasing children's benefits some of it will also be made available for raising women's benefits, to modify the anomalies in connection with the intermittent


worker, and to giving the right to a person to have standard benefit if he has 30 stamps on his card in two years. These are the benefits to which I would devote the money. In these days one gives way to committees, and it makes one wonder whether the House of Commons is not becoming a rubber stamp for outside bodies. I trust, however, that there is still a sufficient number of Members in the House of Commons who will see to it that we do not let our responsibilities go.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: We have all noted the modest remarks of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on the question of unemployment benefits and insurance. He is a very modest individual, and he says he is a very simple individual, but so far as unemployment insurance is concerned, he does at least know one or two things as well as Sir William Beveridge and the members of the Committee who have signed the report we are considering this evening. I do not intend to deal with the matters so ably referred to by the hon. Member for Gorbals. I want more especially to turn the. Minister's attention once again to a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). He asked the Minister very specifically whether it is the intention of the Government, if there is abnormal unemployment at the end of the war, that benefits shall be paid by the Fund, or whether other steps will be taken. We are very much concerned about what is to happen after the war. The matter has been referred to by the Committee whose report we are considering. They say that there is to be anticipated serious unemployment, and we on this side of the House share the same opinion. We believe that there will be serious unemployment because at the moment there is not the slightest trace of any preparations being made by the Government to avert it.
We know what happened on the last occasion, and consequently we are concerned about what is to happen, not so much to the present surplus, or even the reduction of the Debt, but in regard to the great mass of men who have been swept into the fighting forces and into munition factories during the past year

or two. Immediately we get back to peace there will be demobilisation as on the last occasion. As a matter of fact I am rather inclined to think that it will be more expeditiously done than it was the last time, because, whereas we started the last war with a National Debt of £700,000,000, we began this war with a debt of over £8,000,000,000. Therefore, the need for getting men demobilised and back into industry quickly, if industry can find work for them, will exist at the close of the war. We, on this side of the House, are very much concerned about what the Government are preparing to do to meet the post-war period. We do not know how long the war will last, but the longer it goes on the more difficult will become the position.
I do not know why the Minister interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly in regard to the views of this Committee on the subject of unemployment after the war. It is quite true that it is speculation. The Committee is simply speculating as to what will happen, but at any rate they are entitled to draw their conclusions. They have the experience following the last war to go on, and they are entitled to have their own opinion whether or not there is to be unemployment. I will quote two passages from the report, giving the views of the Committee on the subject of unemployment after the war is over:
It appears to us to be as certain as any prophecy can be that the end of the present war will be followed, as the end of the last war was, by severe unemployment.
These are the words of the Committee in the opening sentence of paragraph 14. Paragraph 16 reads:
The war in effect makes impossible any reasonable forecast of the future course of unemployment, beyond the general forecast that any great reduction of unemployment during war is certain to be followed by a great rise of unemployment after it.
So there is no doubt in the minds of the Committee that at the close of this war we shall be faced with a great unemployment problem. My hon. Friend in opening the discussion from this side of the House put the question to the Minister, whether he or the Government intended that the requirements of a great mass of unemployed would be met out of the Unemployment Fund, or whether the Government would take extraordinary methods in order to deal with the problem. This side of the House is more


concerned with finding work for the men who may be unemployed, than with provisions being made for payment of unemployment benefits. The whole problem of unemployment has been treated all the time as a makeshift affair. We have been led to believe that this was only a temporary phase in our national life, and that unemployment was a thing which would be got rid of by and by. The measures brought forward to deal with the situation have been so much patchwork, something for the immediate future, without any long view being taken to tackle the problem. I hope this will be changed, and that if there is any desire on the other side of the House for the continuation of what is called "National unity" after the war, we shall see some evidence of the Government framing schemes which will make provision for the unemployed men when the making of munitions stops. It is not that there is no work to be done in this country. There are great schemes which could be undertaken by the Government, and it ought to be their duty now to prepare schemes.
I agree with what has been said by previous speakers about the proposed disposal of this surplus. We totally dissent from the recommendations of the Committee in regard to it. The 1s. each for the two children in the family is inadequate, and if there is any intention of dealing with the problem in that way there ought to be increases for all the children. A claim can also be made for the unemployed man whose need is much more urgent. There has been an increase in the cost of living since the war started and part of the surplus should be devoted to meeting it by giving an increase in the allowance to the unemployed man as well as to the children. We agree that part of the debt which has been on the Fund for so many years should be got rid of as speedily as possible, but to devote £37,000,000 to that purpose and such a miserable amount to meet the increased cost of living which the unemployed have to meet cannot be justified. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that the one speech which has been made from his side of the House was in favour of our Amendment. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) made it clear that if he had to choose between the recommendations of the Committee and our Amendment he would choose the

Amendment. Not one speech has been made on the other side in justification of the recommendations of the Committee. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary kept on very safe ground. He did not express any opinion or the opinion of the Government. He made no defence of the Committee's recommendations. I suppose that he will leave his right hon. Friend to express any opinions about them. It will be lamentable if the only voice on that side of the House is a voice in defence of the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will, before the close of the Debate, seriously consider the suggestions that have been made and will agree to give more of this surplus to the unemployed and less to the debt.
We on this side are much concerned about what the position will be after the war. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) reminded us that the Lord Privy Seal had said that before long there would be more jobs than men. We are looking forward to that period, but it is not in sight yet. When we have over 1,100,000 unemployed—and there are more, for they are not all registered—it is clear that we are not within sight of the end of the problem. We have had seven months of war and extraordinary industrial activity. In addition many men have been called into the Forces. In spite of that there are over 1,000,000 unemployed. I hope the Government are preparing plans now for the period that is to follow the war. We on this side will be delighted if the Minister can to-night supplement the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal, now Secretary of State for Air, that there would be more jobs than men. If he can tell us that and show how speedily it is to be done we shall have some assurance that the Government are really making an effort to solve the problem. Unless we can have that assurance we shall stand by the Amendment. We are dissatisfied with the recommendations of the Committee, which has not enhanced its reputation in the minds of Members on this side. With a surplus of these dimensions they ought to have come forward with better recommendations than are contained in their report.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Collindridge: I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary for his


clarity in presenting his statement. There is not, however, a great deal of enthusiasm on the Government's side for the case he had to put. That is borne out by the fact that we have had only one speech from the Government benches, on a proposal which affects about 10 per cent. of the people in the country. If hon. Members opposite were proud of this business we should have had more speeches eulogising these proposals. Some of us come from constituencies where it would be regarded as disloyal, in view of the continuance of heavy unemployment, not to say a few words upon the proposals now before us. It is not the fault of individuals that they are unemployed or the fault of the districts where they live that they have to suffer all that results from industrial depression. We have had nearly eight months of war and the district I represent, not a very large one, has still over 5,000 of its inhabitants unemployed. That adversely affects the individuals concerned and it is a levy upon the trading community.
We are discussing in various parts of the country how the unemployed can be used in the war effort. Some districts want during the war new industries which will be able to continue working after the war. My district would prefer that, but I think I voice their views aright when I say that because of the burden of unemployment they would be glad even of an industry that operated only during the war. I have often heard the Minister say that the roll of unemployed consisted mostly of people who were out of work for small periods. If that be so, surely during war we could be more generous to those people in view of the large surplus that has been revealed in this report. I smiled when I read in the report the plea of the employers that the surplus should be devoted to a reduction of contributions. I had recently left the minefields when I came to the House, and the tripartite method of getting funds for our social services by levying on the workers, the employers and the State, is regarded there as a huge joke. By the wage ascertainment system in the mining industry 85 per cent. of the employers' contributions is borne by the miners.
We suggest therefore, that when the Fund, is showing to advantage a little

more generosity should be shown to the workers. We contend that not only should the waiting period be abolished, but that less than three days unemployment should rank for pay. The mining industry, which is perhaps different from most industries, is subject to incidents which cause days of work to be lost through no fault of the miner. We have the anomalous position in the industry that a man who fails to have work for three days in a week is often better off than he who loses only two days' work a week. Regard should be had to that position.
The Statutory Committee argue that we must prepare to deal after the war with what they call the likelihood of severe unemployment. I wonder whether that particular lesson would be a suitable one for the whole country. A plea is being made to the community to lend to defend, but I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the general public to lend if they knew of the sad tale related in the report and whether they would not be more likely to save it for the period of stress which the Committee mentions. I also want to refer to the sad fact that the Committee, supported by the right hon. Gentleman, take up the position of recognising only two children in a family instead of all the children. I wonder when the Government will learn by past experience. They started by treating the dependants of serving men in similar fashion, recognising only a certain number of the children in a soldier's family, but owing to the indignation created in the country they had to retreat from that position and to recommend that all the children should be recognised.
As mentioned by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, it would be better if the Government concerned itself with the morale of the country in connection with this matter. I say no word of disrespect about those of well-to-do families who are now serving in His Majesty's Forces; I pay them the same tribute as I pay to members of the working class who are fighting the country's battle, but the fact remains that it is the sons of the workers who are in the majority in the Army, Navy and Air Force. Those young men have families here on the home front, and I am satisfied that a generous gesture by the right hon. Gentleman towards their families would


strengthen not only the morale of the country but of the fighting men as well. We have been told that a time will come, and ere long, when it will be a case of seeking men for jobs and not seeking jobs for men. If those who put forward that view are so sure of themselves surely it is proper to give better treatment to the remnant of the unemployed until that good time comes. It is right to put forward that plea on behalf of districts like my own, where there is a heavy rate of unemployment for which the people are not responsible. The country is holding those men in readiness until the need for them arises, and meantime they ought to be treated generously, and I hope the plea we make in our Amendment will be supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. A. Jenkins: I should like to join with the other Members who have congratulated the Parliamentary Secretary upon the clarity of his statement. Like them, I wish he had had a subject which would have permitted him to introduce some enthusiasm, but at any rate his statement was so clear that we all thoroughly understood it. With my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) I want to say that in my judgment the Government have missed a golden opportunity of doing a measure of justice to the unemployed. Last year the Fund had an income over and above its expenditure of approximately£25,000,000. It is true that the Fund has a debt which was incurred in other days—we have had quarrels about that and need not argue it further now—but it had that big surplus last year. Another salient fact is that during the period of the war the very people who are the recipients of benefit from the Fund have experienced an in crease of approximately 20 per cent. in the cost of living, and their purchasing power has been reduced by, roughly, 15 per cent. The Minister has missed the opportunity of putting those people in the position in which they were at the beginning of the war. I do not think even the Minister will be able to introduce any enthusiasm into his defence of the recommendations of this Committee. Even the Committee themselves seek to excuse themselves regarding certain of their decisions. I will quote from page 12 of their report:

In considering the finance of the Unemployment Fund it is not appropriate for us to take into account directly such matters as the cost of living or the rates of assistance fixed from time to time of the Unemployment Assistance Board. Our approach to the problem is financial only; that of adjusting the income and expenditure of the Fund.
Further down on the same page they say:
If, in the present war, drastic changes occur in the value of money the problem may arise of making changes in the rates of benefit, but those problems must be dealt with, if at all, by special legislation.
The proper interpretation of what the Committee say there is that they invite this House to take such steps as may be necessary in order to deal with the increase in the cost of living. They go on to strengthen that point:
If the value of money changes so that 1s. becomes, say, 11d. only, in terms of commodities, that in itself is a reason for using our surplus to increase rates of benefit.
There the Committee put forward proposals which this House ought to be ready to adopt, but we have not done it. The House and the Government have missed a golden opportunity of doing justice to these people. To say "justice" is putting the matter too high, because it has never been argued in this House—no Minister, not even the Minister of Labour, has ever said it—that the rates of unemployment benefit are adequate for maintenance. The Minister knows perfectly well that they are not, because he has examined the matter as some of us have examined it. On hundreds of occasions I have examined family budgets, and I have found that in the unemployed home—a man, his wife and children—they are usually living on an average of expenditure which approximates to 2d. or 2½d. per meal. Now we are reducing even that level, and are not taking advantage of the opportunity offered by this great surplus in the Fund to put benefits on a par with what they were in September.
The Committee recommend that half the £77,000,000 of debt should be wiped off this year. From an arithmetical point of view one can see the advantage of that, and the Committee point out that it will reduce the liability for debt charges by approximately one-half. If I remember aright, in 1931 the May Committee recommended that the Fund should bear a liability for repayment of debt by £5,000,000 per annum. The Government have now gone seven times better than the recommendation of the May Commit-


tee by making a reduction of £37,000,000 in one year. We are doing this at a time when, as the Minister himself knows well, the rates of benefit are not adequate for maintenance, because provision has had to be made whereby some of those receiving statutory benefit may appeal to the Unemployment Assistance Board for supplementation. If benefit is kept at a low level more and more people will have to take advantage of that provision. That is not fair and, further, it means taking far too much of the payments made by working people. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has already referred to the contributions paid by the miners. They pay their own contributions and, under their wages arrangements, they pay 85 per cent. of the employers' contributions as well, leaving the employers to pay only 15 per cent.
It is very important that the rates of benefit should be as adequate as possible. We should not miss the golden opportunity now presented to us, and I hope the Minister will give the House an opportunity of putting matters right. I feel there is not one Member of the House who if he were free from the Whips, and had full knowledge of all that is involved, would not agree to our Amendment. Only one Member other than the Minister has spoken from the opposite side of the House and that was the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). He strongly supported the Amendment, and I have no doubt that many other hon. Members opposite would do the same. It would be a correct if not a generous act on the part of the Minister to get up and announce that he accepted the Amendment.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: The case for the Amendment has been amply stated and I desire to amplify only one point. In a reference to the evidence which was given to the Committee by the Trades Union Congress it was mentioned that the Congress had supported the view that
the excess of income over expenditure must not be regarded as a war profit but as due to the normal incidence of economic causes.
On the next page, when argument is entered into by the Committee, they return to this point and. say:
There is room for argument as to whether the whole of the unexpected improvement in

the financial working of the Unemployment Fund in the past year is due to defence expenditure. But there can be no hesitation in attributing some of the improvement, if not all of it, to this cause.
Speaking personally, that does not impress me. The normal lot of the working people of this country is to work for their livelihood, and it is a matter of secondary importance whether it is war work or ordinary economic work. The unexpected gain of the Unemployment Fund in 1939 was the result of the normal activities of the working people, and it should not be related to any exceptional circumstances. It is the simple result of more people being in employment, and it has benefited a Fund which was created for the purpose of relieving those who are in distress. There is no doubt, as stated here, that what is likely to be the effect of the war is one of the factors to be taken into account. The war has resulted in the need, for large sections of the people of this country, to have increased wages, because prices have gone up. This has led a small section of the community who are eligible for unemployment benefit to be in a worse position than they previously were. That is definitely a result of the war. I therefore think that the Amendment is definitely related to the needs of the people whom the Fund was meant to succour. What we shall have at the end of the war is not so important as what is happening now, which is that people are suffering. Whatever succour is at the disposal of the Committee or the Government should be used for the effects of the war as they can be seen to-day.
We are told that there is one difference to-day as against ordinary times. It is that this is a great national effort of millions of people who are bound together in one family as they never were bound before. Here is a small unit of that family, suffering. The mover of the Amendment referred to this matter. This small section of the family is suffering now, before the war has come to an end, and is suffering because of the war. There should be no hesitation on the part of anyone looking at this matter impartially, and with regard to the purpose of the Fund, that the Amendment should be accepted and applied.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: The House has discussed this proposal at some length. Experts with far greater know-


ledge than I possess have spoken with knowledge and enthusiasm for the Amendment. If there were any doubt whether our Amendment should be pressed to a Division it would be removed by the fact that the Amendment has been strongly supported and that there has been no dissentient voice in any part of the House with regard to it. In fact, as has already been stated, the only voice from the Government side of the House expressed itself in no uncertain terms as being wholly in favour of the Amendment. Perhaps it would be just as well to inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition has just received a telegram from an unexpected source supporting our Amendment and pressing for the abolition of the waiting period. It is from the Brighouse Master Builders' Association. Therefore it is not only from one side that the need for justice in this connection is seen, but from a wider, informed public opinion.
I should like to deal with one general point before I come to the report of the Committee. One of my hon. Friends has referred to a statement, made upon ministerial authority, that the time might come when jobs would be seeking men rather than men be seeking jobs. Frankly, I do not believe that any such time can arise in the present economic organisation of society. I am alarmed at the statement, because it suggests that the speaker was visualising the most ghastly holocaust ever known in history, if a period like that were to come. I believe that, in present economic circumstances, even if production rose to the highest peak ever known, we should still have the unemployed army among the people. That is bound to be. That is one of the reasons why I deplore the report that is now before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said that we were not prepared to accept the report and to swallow it without consideration merely because it had been presented by so-called experts. Bless me, the whole of history is strewn with mistakes and disasters that have followed upon the prognostications of experts. The expert is usually a person who cannot see the wood for the trees and therefore may land you into considerable trouble.
One notices names to this report that one always sees upon reports of this

character. The reports are now so stereotyped that one can almost guess the kind of report that these people are likely to bring forward. Like the Government's programme, the whole thing lacks imagination or any appreciation of the broad issues involved. It would be foolish to say, and I shall not attempt to do so, that there is no benefit in the proposals now before the House, but the Government, on this occasion as upon others, have missed an opportunity of looking at the matter in a broad sense. They have always acted in such a niggardly fashion that the manner in which they have presented their proposal has very often undone any benefit there might have been, by arousing a certain amount of resentment that otherwise would not have been created.
The statement is made in this report by its signatories that, to some extent, the surplus that we are now considering may be due to war circumstances, and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has already referred to that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) rightly called attention to the previous cuts that have been made and that have, over a long period, gone to swell this surplus. My hon. Friend asked, is it right or fair that the insurance Fund, which was created to cover insurance risks, should be included, and that the unemployed should be held responsible for bearing the burden of social upheaval? That is what it amounts to in this connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) called attention to paragraph 21 of the report. Even the experts say that they are very uneasy in their minds about this matter. They point out with truth that the purchasing power of money is not the same now as normally. We may take it for certain that the position will get worse and that nobody will feel it more than the people who are concerned in this matter, namely, those on the lower edge of old age pensions, and so forth. Instead of devoting this money to reducing the debt, as we are told, it would surely have been better to distribute it among the unemployed. That would have been better for the nation from the economic point of view because the money would have gone into productive enterprise and into things necessary to keep the wheels of industry


going. The nation would have benefited considerably thereby.
The other thing that impresses me very much in glancing at this report is the way in which the Government have approached the matter. They appear to have thrown in their hand already, so far as post-war conditions are concerned. Are we to be told that there is to be no planning? The Government ought to be planning ahead for what is to happen after the war. We simply have here a prophecy and jeremiad that unemployment is bound to happen. As one with some knowledge of the ordinary working man in this country I say that that appears to be looking for a considerable amount of trouble in the days to come. Let it be said, and quite clearly understood, that I believe the people will not stand for the position which followed the last war. There will be something which is utterly foreign to what has happened in the history of this country, unless the Government are taking considerable steps to plan. That planning must mean a basic alteration in the economic condition of society as we now know it. To say deliberately that there is to be no planning to do away with unemployment, or to meet the changes that will possibly come immediately after the war, is inviting disaster, and is at the same time alarming a good many people. A society that can assure to its citizens enough to eat and drink and the wherewithal to live only in time of war has no justification for existence. That is the sort of society in which we are living to-day and it is proposed to perpetuate it to an even worse extent than we have known.
Now I come to the extraordinary proposal that the increase in children's allowances should be only in respect of the first two children. That is a new form of birth control—Government birth control. It means, in effect, that the Government are now saying to people that two children in the family are the limit. What does this mean? It means under present conditions, that the harassed mother will have her worries intensified as the family increases, and that we are penalising the nation's greatest asset. If the war becomes intensified, twice in less than two generations we shall have lost the flower of our nation. We should therefore be doing

all that we can to see that that is made up, and we should not penalise the people who may, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed although they may have families somewhat large. Anything more absurd is difficult to imagine. No wonder that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said he was not prepared to face those consequences and that he approved of the Amendment. When he found that the Minister did not give him any sympathy he exhibited dismay and horror, and went out of the Chamber, where he has not been seen since.
With her knowledge of working-class life my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) touched upon a real point when she spoke of the difference between the allowances as causing a considerable amount of social unrest and trouble. To-morrow night I shall be doing what so many of my hon. Friends make a general practice of doing, sitting in my constituency to receive people who bring complaints. Believe me, there are many complaints. Among these people will be women who will ask why Mrs. So-and-So has a larger allowance than she has. It is no good my explaining that it is because there is something more coming into the house. She will say that her boy has gone to the war and that she ought to be treated similarly. You will have the same thing said in regard to the children. All that kind of feeling goes to make up the undercurrent of unrest and distrust, and when the time comes that is visualised in the report, namely, that we are bound to get more unemployment, we shall have more trouble than anyone will want to face.
In regard to the surplus, I agree with the notes that Mr. Thomson has made. Mr. Thomson does not altogether accept that the surplus is merely a matter that has arisen out of war conditions. He recognises that various other factors have gone to build it up. I suggest to the Minister even now that it seems rather deplorable that, in a part of the House to which we usually attribute the representation of wealth and privilege in society, one supporter of the Government, who has probably brought himself into touch with the other side of things and with the workers, should have been the only one to stand up here against anything that might be to the advantage


of the workers and might penalise them in some way or another.
I hope the Minister will take advantage of the opportunity to gather the sense of the House. This is a subject which affects 10 per cent. of the population; yet the House is practically empty and only one hon. Member on the opposite side has thought it worth while to take part in the discussion. With the expression of the sense of the House—never mind about those who have not taken part in the Debate—I hope the Minister will accept the opinion that the waiting period should be wiped out, and the surplus distributed among the people who are now in the ranks of the unemployed. Not only will that assist the people, but it will benefit the nation as a whole in the broadest and truest sense, and the Minister will be assured that he has done something which will redound to his credit. It will indicate that the Government have looked at the matter from the broad view and with imagination instead of in a niggardly fashion.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. E. Brown: The hon. Gentleman rather surprised me in one passage of his speech.

Mr. Ammon: I often do.

Mr. Brown: That may be so; perhaps his views do surprise me, but he made a personal reference. He made the general accusation that I was accustomed to standing at the Box defending matters which other hon. Members on this side would not support. When he reflects on what he has said he will see that that is scarcely a fair view of myself after nearly five years as Minister of Labour. As Minister of Labour I could produce a longerlist of reforms for the benefit of the working people for whom he asks me to speak to-day than any of my predecessors of any party, whether it be a question of the extension of the scheme to 1,000,000 people who have not had the advantages before, or a whole series of other amendments to the insurance scheme, every one of them with one exception for the benefit of the unemployed. I will only say to the hon. Gentleman that I am prepared at any time to have a balance sheet drawn up as between himself and hisparty's handling of the Unemployment Fund and unemployment insurance matters and the record that I can present to the nation.

Miss Wilkinson: You have had rearmament.

Mr. Brown: This has been going on persistently and constantly and it is a record in which I can take nothing but pride. [Interruption.] Well, I have been modest, and if I cared I could have sought the headlines, but that has never been my desire in this office. We have in the balance sheet solid facts, and from the point of view of this Government in our period of office and in nearly five years in which I have been Minister of Labour that balance sheet is infinitely better than the balance sheet which hon. Members opposite can show. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) did take a broad view. We have been told that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a speech which was full of clarity and I am sure he will regard that as a great compliment. It is easier, however, to be full of broad, imaginative views and enthusiasms when in Opposition than it is when you have to shoulder the responsibility of handling practical affairs. The hon. Member for Llanelly said that a report of a committee of experts is nearly always wrong, but on this occasion the hon. Gentleman was caught because he was asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson),who as the House knows is an Independent Member of the House, what it would cost to do two of the things that he was advocating. His answer showed the danger of the non-expert entering into the waters usually sailed by the expert, because his answer was far from accurate. It indicated how easy it is to take a broad, enthusiastic, imaginative view on insufficient information because one has not appreciated the arguments and reasons put forward by the experts. We have had an estimate of the cost of abolishing the three days waiting period and it is a very instructive example of the danger of brushing aside experts. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was that it would cost £1,300,000. It is a fallacy to say that three days of a waiting period are equal to any other three days.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Minister dispute that figure?

Mr. Brown: I do. It is not true. It was easier for me to come down and ask the House to agree to reducing the period from six days to three days than


to reduce it from three days to one day. The first day of unemployment is the largest day of unemployment. There are more people out of work for one day than for any other day of any period of unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that and abolish the three days waiting period and the continuity rule, he must reckon that not £1,300,000 but £5,000,000 will be the cost on the basis on which the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have always reckoned their percentages.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Minister has misrepresented or misunderstood what I said. In estimating the cost of abolishing the remaining waiting days—I will give the Minister's figures—first of all, when the waiting period was reduced from six days to three days the Committee estimated that the added expenditure was £1,250,000 at that time, when unemployment was at 16·75 per cent. and the number in the insurable scheme was 12,000,000. Now the number is up to 14,000,000 and unemployment is down to 10 per cent., and the Committee estimate that unemployment will be still less this year.

Mr. Brown: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. I stick to what I have said. The cost might be less than £5,000,000 on another basis, but it would be much greater than £1,300,000 which the hon. Member mentioned in his answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham.

Mr. Griffiths: In any case the difference would be very small indeed as compared with the mistakes which the Committee made in estimating this year's balance.

Mr. Brown: I could not agree with that either. The actual balance is not a matter of estimating; it is a matter of fact. If it is a question whether there is a surplus or not, that may be a matter of opinion, but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that the balance is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact and it is open to statistical proof. No hon. Member would think of disproving the actual figures which are adduced in the appendix showing the basis on which the balance was computed. So much for the experts and the non-experts.
The hon. Member for Llanelly and his colleagues do not all say the same thing. Some of them say that you must not have

regard to the period after the war, and others say you must. Some say that unless you do something—something unspecified, on some big, broad imaginative plan, something as enthusiastic as what the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) proposed, namely, the reconstruction of the whole social and economic system—there will be unemployment. Anyone reading the report of the Debate to-morrow will find that these views have not been very consistent. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will let me make my own speech I will be glad to listen to him. The hon. Member for Llanelly said that I ought to declare what the Government will do in this matter. He should know perfectly well that I can make no statement of that kind because it is not a departmental matter for me. The question has been put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not once nor twice but three times, and he has given answers showing that so far from being unaware of the future or not alive to it, as the speeches on the opposite side suggest, he is very well aware of the future. His answers in this House indicate that fact very well, although in those answers he was very careful not to fall into the trap laid by those who put the questions—those with the broad imaginative plans.
We have to take things as they are and we have to make preparations, and I hope that in making our preparations we shall have regard to those who made broad imaginative plans towards the end of the last war. I have on my file at home 24 pamphlets which I purchased on landing from France, all dealing with broad imaginative plans, and some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and members of his party were responsible for some of the planning. The result of that planning does not make an ex-service man over-enthusiastic unless those who ask for planning are prepared to come a little closer to realities.

Miss Wilkinson: Surely the fault was not in the planning but in those gentlemen who have been described as the hard-faced men and who did well out of the war and stopped any of those plans being put into operation?

Mr. Brown: I would not agree with that. There has been one particular kind of planning in which in the end we have


made very big strides. I refer to housing construction. It was not done on the lines of the broad, imaginative planning mentioned in those particular pamphlets. I have made it clear, and the Prime Minister has made it clear, that he is alive to the need for taking notice of the warning. The Committee said two things. First of all it said, "We are not going to recommend the Government to abandon taking the long view. We are not going to lay our policy on a short period of one or two years." They have always made their plans on the consideration of an eight years period. They say secondly, "This is an abnormal period. We are likely to have two abnormal periods, the period in which we now are, which will be intensified as the war effort is intensified, and secondly, the period of readjustment after the war. For these reasons we shall need to have reserves in the Unemployment Fund." First of all they point out that one difference between the last post-war period and this post-war period will be that there was no widespread Unemployment Fund then. There was a small fund covering about 3,000,000 insured workers. It was not until just before the real slump began that a larger measure of insurance was brought in, and then we had recourse to all kinds of shifts. They point out that that step was then taken too late. Now we have a Fund. It is surely right to take the long view of it and to make sure, as far as human foresight and prevision can make sure, that we do not damage the basis of the Fund, that we keep a reserve in order to deal with whatever measure of exceptional unemployment may come.
The second reason they give is this. They say, "Since you have established an Insurance Fund, since people now have stamped cards piled up, that means that when the war is over and those who are entitled to benefit come on to the Fund, they will be making the maximum call on the Fund." That is a reason that no one can overlook, that claimants will have the maximum number of stamps and will be entitled to the maximum period of benefit. The other is an economic industrial reason which ought to appeal to every Member of the House, including the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell. Owing to the tremendous increase in mechanisation, an issue which is raised whenever there is a

change over from war to peace, there must be a larger distortion than was the case in the days relatively pre-mechanisation. The hon. Gentleman used that argument, I thought carelessly, that there might be some happy state of affairs on a different basis where work and the worker would always synchronise, where job and job would always synchronise, where there would never be a man coming to register for unemployment. If that is the kind of picture that he draws in his mind, I hope he will get nearer reality and let those to whom he talks in that way have some idea of the details whereby he is going to manage such a synchronisation.
The Statutory Committee say four things to the House to-day. First, we have an accumulated balance—not a surplus. We have an outstanding debt. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to say "Wipe the debt away," but the debt was incurred and was £106,000,000 in July, 1934, and I regard it as one of the things on the credit side of the balance sheet of the Government that the debt is now down to £40,000,000. It will be a very different problem for the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee and for the Government and the Opposition if the time arrives when we have an accumulated balance and no outstanding debt. They say, since it is true that a great deal of the balance is unexpected, not only because of war circumstances, but largely due to war circumstances, it is right, taking the long view, to help to do away with that anomaly, and they have chosen £37,000,000 as the figure they would recommend to pay off. The hon. Member for Llanelly quoted from me, but he will allow me to complete the quotation. If he had completed it he would have found out that my forecast in August makes good the argument of the Committee in this report. I said on 3rd August:
There is a 10 years story behind these figures. An analysis of the last 10 years will show that we are now in the midst of a movement, quite apart from the armaments movement, which is far bigger than any seasonal movement. Broadly speaking, the fact is that the fall of 783,000 in the numbers of unemployed between January and July is 450,000 greater than the normal decrease in the normal years when decreases have taken place in the 10 preceding years. That is a very remarkable fact and, although I do not want to belittle the enormous effect on employment of the expenditure on armaments, it is not true


to say that it is solely due to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1939; col. 2694, Vol. 350.]
[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will look up the part of the quotation that he read he will find that he did not quote the last part of that quotation, which is the important part. What has happened since September is complete proof of this. If there had been no war and we were still in the period of intensive preparation, the building of small houses would have been going on still, there would be no interference in the South and West except in areas which were saturated with the number of houses. That is only one illustration.

Mr. Buchanan: You did not build in Scotland.

Mr. Brown: I am talking of figures which have come into the unemployment statistics in September. What has been happening is that you have had a very strong flood-tide making for employment, growing stronger every day, but the change over from peace to war meant that there was a strong ebb tide as well against the flood. The figures this morning are the first major indication that, while the flood is going forward, the ebb has come nearly to an end. Those who sail in tricky water will appreciate the simile. Those who have tried to make an estimation of the future in order to belittle expert opinion are sailing in very tricky waters. The Government believe that the view taken by Sir William Beveridge and his Committee in this report is the right one. They have said, let us take advantage of this abnormal balance and do away with some of the debt. Let us in doing it have regard to the future. Let us not abandon the well-tried practice which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) admitted had produced gradual improvement. For that is the record for the last five years—nothing broad, nothing imaginative, perhaps, but conditions better all the time, with the one exception that he mentioned.
The third thing is this. Having done that, having had regard to the future, it is necessary to deal with the problem in such a way as to give the maximum benefit inside the disposable surplus. We have been told to-day in this Amendment that the Labour party agree with the evidence of the Trades Union Congress

with regard to the three major points they put before the Statutory Committee. Let me bring them to the test of the estimated financial effect. First of all I am not very clear on Mr. Thomson's reservations, exactly what he meant with regard to the addition to the general benefit, but I understand that what he meant was that the benefit should have been raised by 2s. 6d. a week. To make that addition of half-a-crown for adults, with proportionate betterment for other classes, would cost £6,000,000 a year—not £6,000,000 for one year, but in each year during the years to come, on the unemployment figure which the Committee were dealing with in the report.

Mr. Jenkins: Would not that be just about equal to the percentage loss which these people have sustained in the increase in the cost of living?

Mr. Brown: I should not agree to that at all, but I do not want to be involved in that argument now. I want to put the facts before the House. It is estimated that in normal conditions, which is what the Committee were dealing with, an increase of benefit to the extent of 2s. 6d. for adults, with proportional betterment for other classes, would amount to £6,000,000 per annum and the abolition of the waiting period, retaining the continuity rule, would cost £1,750,000 a year. The abolition of the waiting period as asked for by the hon. Member for Llanelly, with payment for all the days of unemployment, would cost between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000 a year.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Those figures are estimates made by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The Committee give no estimates in their report. On what general level of unemployment percentage are those estimates based?

Mr. Brown: They would be based on a general average of about 15 per cent., which is the normal average with which the Committee have been dealing.

Mr. Griffiths: If the average this year is 10 per cent. or less, those figures would be very materially reduced.

Mr. Brown: If the war came to an end before the end of the year, in respect of unemployment within a period of two or three years from now we should be


placed in precisely the same position as the party opposite left their successors in 1931. The Government of the day would have to impose cuts, and would be doing the hardest thing for the unemployed. On that issue I am sure hon. Members opposite in their hearts agree—that given the choice between getting a reasonably secure addition of a smaller magnitude and a larger addition of a bigger magnitude they would prefer to take the advice of the Committee, as the Government do, and see that 2s. goes into the household.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) said that repayment was bound to be judged in the light of circumstances. He regretted that we have not a unified social services system. He called attention to the fact that there are variations in the rates of pay. That is far outside my scope to-day. All the same, I have not yet seen in detail a plan which would have regard to the history of these great social movements of ours. The hon. Member would not expect me to give him a definite answer on that to-day. With regard to the other question, of the married women, I know of no experience of magnitude to warrant me in telling the House that I thought the time had arrived when there should be any alteration in the general arrangements, under the Anomalies Act, for married women. In the first period of the operation of the Anomalies Act, 134,000 married women came off benefit. The majority did not return to the exchanges. Of course, conditions may change; the impact of war on women's labour may make a difference. [An HON. MEMBER: "It does make a very big difference."] I know; but, on the whole, it does not make a call for any alteration of the Anomalies Act. It makes a call for regular, and not for seasonal, labour. The fact is that it was not on financial grounds that the Anomalies Act was brought in, especially in so far as it affected married women. It was brought in because the Royal Commission, which went very carefully into the matter, came to the conclusion that the working of the old rule had effects, both on the Fund and on industry, which were undesirable. For those reasons, the Labour Government accepted their report. Although I have certainly taken note of some of the minor suggestions made to-day, I have heard nothing to lead me to believe that a major

alteration is required in the Act in relation to married women.
There were one or two smaller, practical points raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals. He asked me to look again at the question of intermittent work. I do not know that there is any change that can be made in the procedure, but I will look again at the matter. With regard to the 180 days, that, of course, was a matter of administrative difficulty. The House knows that since the war I have been working under great difficulty. My very big register system had to be moved, and we have been working, under the pressure of war conditions, on a smaller scale than that of the very big documentary system we had. Weighing it up, we came to the conclusion that the 180 days would be about the period which would cover the maximum number of cases; but, of course, I am always willing to look at things like this again. If it were desired to alter the period, we could, of course, do so again by regulation. What we have done in this Order is to accept the view of the Committee that it would be wise to hold on to the reserves and to reduce at once the heavy debt and the heavy credit balance; and, since the Committee, under their statutory powers, have recommended the repayment of £37,000,000 of debt, that it is the right thing to use the £1,100,000 which, in accordance with their recommendation becomes available, by way of giving one shilling per week in respect of each of the first two dependent children.

Mr. Buchanan: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question which was raised, about people who are out two days a week? He has devoted a lot of time to the question of abolishing the waiting period. Would he not re-consider, and possibly make a change in, the condition of three days in six, and make it, instead, three days in twelve?

Mr. Brown: It may be that the time will come when the Committee will say either that it can do the major thing or that it can do the minor thing. I do not know, but there is no objection in principle. It is a question of what the Committee think shall be done with the Fund.

Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman promised to reply to the point I raised,


about these people being 15 to 20 per cent. worse off now than they were in September, because of the war and what has happened since. There is a surplus in the Fund. Why has he not taken steps to put people in as good a position as they were in September?

Mr. Brown: The Unemployment Fund is not related to the question of need. It is different from the assistance scheme

administered by the Unemployment Assistance Board, because it is possible for anybody in need to go to the Board and get supplementation of the scale.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 118.

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[7.26 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gower, Sir R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Assheton, R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Robertson, D.


Beechman, N. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bernays, R. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Rowlands, G.


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bossom, A. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Salt, E. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Jennings, R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Storey, S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cary, R. A.
Levy, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Channon, H.
Liddall, W. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Taylor, Captain C. S.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lyons, A. M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Touche, G. C.


Craven-Ellis, W
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Cruddas, Col. B.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Culverwell, C. T.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Davidson, Viscountess
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Denville, Alfred
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Doland, G. F.
Mitchell, Col. H. (Brentf'd &amp; Chisw'k)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Munro, P.
Wise, A. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Nall, Sir J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Errington, E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Etherton, Ralph
Peake, O.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Boulton.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton



Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Procter, Major H. A.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dobbie, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Buchanan, G.
Ede, J. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cassells, T.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Foot, D. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cooks, F. S.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Collindridge, F.
Gardner, B. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cove, W. G.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Barr, J.
Daggar, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Batey, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)




Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marshall, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Groves, T. E.
Martin, J. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.


Hardie, Agnes
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Milner, Major J.
Stokes, R. R.


Harvey, T. E.
Montague, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hayday, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Thorne, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, E.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Oliver, G. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Horabin, T. L.
Owen, Major G.
Walker, J.


Isaacs, G. A.
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Jagger, J.
Parker, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pearson, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


John, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pritt, D. N.
Wilmot, John


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Leonard, W.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lipson, D. L.
Shinwell, E.



Lunn, W.
Silkin, L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sloan, A.
Mr. R. J. Taylor and Mr. Charleton.


MacLaren, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



Maclean, N.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft of the Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, entitled the Unemployment Insurance (Increase of Benefit in respect of Dependent Children) Order, 1940, a copy of which was presented to this House on 18th March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir Dennis Herbert in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(Power during emergency to modify certain requirements as to meetings, appointment of officers and amendment of rules.)

7.34 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "with," to insert "or vary."
In rising to move the first Amendment, it may perhaps shorten our proceedings and be of assistance to the Committee if they will allow me to say what I propose to do in regard to the large number of Amendments which are on the Order Paper. The first series of Amendments in my name are all drafting points, or deal with subsidiary points which are equivalent to drafting, and I shall ask the Committee to accept them. The long

list of Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) I do not propose to resist, if they are moved, and the same is true of the long list of Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on the next page, and that applies to the corresponding Amendments on the fourth page. I shall move to negative Clause 8. Apart from that, there are two or three other Amendments with which we can deal as they come along. Perhaps that statement may help the Committee.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I rise to express my gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his statement. All I can say is that, if the Government had shown such expedition in other matters as he has shown in this matter, it would have been a very happy thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 1, after "periods," insert "or at specified places."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "enactment," to insert:
or any regulation, rule or order made under any enactment.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is a very knowledgeable person on all these matters, what are the rules,


regulations or enactments that would affect what we are dealing with to-day, apart from those that are covered by the Bill itself? Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may be able to enlighten us on that point.

Captain Crookshank: I do not know that there are any in fact.

Mr. Davies: If there are none, why seek to put in this Amendment?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman said, I think, "excepting those referred to in the Bill itself."

Mr. Davies: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is proposing an Amendment to insert:
or any regulation, rule or order made under any enactment.
Can he explain what these rules or orders made under any enactment mean?

7.37 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I appreciate the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. I thought that that was really only a drafting point to introduce any regulations or orders which might have been made under the general body of regulations during the war. It is an emergency provision which has been put in since the war started, but which is not specified or defined. There is no substance in this. It is really only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 43, leave out "section" and insert "Act."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to explain the provision of this particular Clause. I am given to understand that some statement has been made that he intends to remove Clause 8 altogether, and that it will be competent for trade unions to approach the Registrar of Friendly Societies to make an amendment in the benefit rule or to carry out by negotiation with the Registrar that which this Bill originally intended to carry out, namely, the procedure with

regard to benefits in Clause 8. Is that the intention that this particular Clause has in view? I am rather interested to know whether a trade union will be able to go to the Registrar in the event of not being able to meet their obligations under their rules and ask for an amendment of the benefit rule. I refer particularly to those trade unions which are illegal under the Common Law, where the benefits cannot be enforced and the unions may repudiate the benefits. What will be the position if a trade union which has been held to be illegal at Common Law goes to the Registrar? Will he be authorised to amend the rule, or will they be told that the law does not recognise the enforcement of the contract and that by that means they themselves must repudiate their moral liability—certainly not their legal liability—and they cannot proceed to ask the Registrar to assist them in this particular matter?

7.40 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman has propounded a problem which I think I can answer correctly. I do not think that what he suggests could in fact occur. The whole object of what we are proposing is governed by the fact that the approach to the Chief Registrar for this amended form of procedure—because that is all that it amounts to—is on the basis, as he will see in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), page 1, line 13, "of circumstances attributable to the emergency."

Mr. Oliver: I am assuming that that condition obtains.

Captain Crookshank: That is the governing consideration, and Sub-section (2) diminishes the consideration still further, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I do not think therefore that the question of anything which could have arisen under Clause 8 would get through these double gates. That, I think, is the position. Perhaps I have not quite taken up the point of the hon. Member?

Mr. Oliver: Perhaps I have not made myself particularly clear. It gives the trade unions the right to go to the Registrar to amend the rules. It may well be that the rule that they may seek to amend is a benefit rule, and that need for amendment arises out of the emergency. What is the position of the Registrar with respect to a trade union declared illegal at Common Law?

Captain Crookshank: I do not quite understand the hon. Member. I am sorry. This is part of the law with which I am not very well acquainted, and perhaps the hon. Member will help me a little by saying what he means by an illegal trade union.

Mr. Oliver: Under Section 4 of the Act of 1871 there are certain contracts which the courts cannot enforce by reason of the trade union being an illegal association at Common Law. That being the case, if an illegal association goes to the Registrar and suggests that by reason of the emergency they cannot pay the benefits, which they have morally contracted to pay to their members, what is the position of the Registrar in that respect? Can he authorise an alteration in the benefit rule, or must he say, "I have no power, and as a result of my having no power, you must repudiate on your own responsibility"? I think that that is as clear as the thing can be made.

Captain Crookshank: As far as the Clause is concerned, any rule can be amended, subject to whatever the procedure may be of confirming it. The object of the Clause is to make it clear that, if in the case of emergency the ordinary procedure cannot be carried out, then the same sort of amendment can be authorised by permission of the Chief Registrar. The Clause itself gives the safeguard in Sub-section (4), in the event of the action taken not being approved subsequently by the general meeting. As regards, the so-called "illegal" trade unions, it seems to me that if they do not come within the sphere of the Registrar in one way or another, he has no jurisdiction to deal with them. He can deal only with those for whom he has the responsibility laid down by Parliament. I think that that is the answer; and I hope that it is correct.

Mr. Oliver: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to registered branches of friendly societies.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 28, at the end, add:
(4) Sub-section (4) of the foregoing Section shall apply to an amendment of the rules of a registered branch of a friendly

society, being an amendment made under this Section otherwise than in accordance with a direction given by the chief registrar, in like manner as it applies to an amendment made in accordance with such a direction."—[Captain Crookskank.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amalgamation and transfer of engagements of building societies.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, after "present," insert "and entitled to vote."—[Captain Crookshank.]

7.46 p.m.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Rear-Admiral BEAMISH:

In page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(2) A special resolution and/or a resolution of the general meeting or committee of management under this Section shall disclose all particulars of any money payment or other benefit proposed to be paid to, conferred on, or received by, for, or on behalf of any director, manager, officer, or servant connected with any building society referred to in the special resolution and/or resolution of the general meeting or committee of management having reference to any amalgamation or transfer of engagements of a building society.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I put down this Amendment in order to test Clause5 in regard to its capacity to look after the interests of members of building societies, but on closer examination and after making further inquiries my impression is that the Clause, particularly so far as Sub-section (3) is concerned, covers all the ground that I want, and unless the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) is moved later on, when I should wish to say something on it, I will not proceed with my Amendment.

7.47 p.m.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, at the beginning, to insert:
Except with the consent of the Registrar.
I move this Amendment as the present Clause is somewhat drastic, and it might make the perfectly bona fide procedure, on the part of a building society whose directors, for one reason or another, de-


cided to dissolve it, void, and a society might be put into a difficulty with possibly serious results and certainly considerable inconvenience and expense. For example, a society might decide to dissolve, and then an opportunity might come along whereby it could transfer its mortgages to another society to the advantage of all concerned. Having come to the original decision it might by its later decision be put into a difficulty under the Clause as it stands in the Bill although acting in perfect good faith. Under these circumstances it seems to me appropriate that the Registrar should have power to consent in a proper case to that procedure continuing notwithstanding that a transfer of mortgages is contemplated. There are cases where the approval of the Registrar is deniable and convenient, and in my submission this is one of those cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Milner: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(4) A transfer of mortgages by a building society to another building society on terms that, except with his consent, the obligations of the mortgagor are not varied to his disadvantage, shall not for the purposes of this Section, be deemed to be a transfer of engagements provided that no other funds, property or assets are also transferred as part of the same transaction except additional security held in connection with any such mortgage.
This is a rather more technical matter. There is no definition, so far as I know, of what is meant by the term "transfer of engagements," and in particular it is not clear whether that term necessarily involves the transfer of all the engagements of a society or whether it would be permissible to transfer, as might be desirable, only part of the engagements of the society, as, for example, some portion of its mortgage securities. In this matter the Building Societies Association for whom I speak are in doubt, and it is clearly desirable at this time that they should know where they stand and that they should be empowered to transfer mortgages to another society in case of necessity. The position of the trade unions is dealt with in Clause 6, Sub-section (3), where it will be seen that the Clause does anticipate trade unions desiring to transfer a part of their property. Similarly, a building society should have the same power and be enabled to transfer mortgages. In wartime

it is particularly essential that financial institutions should be liquid or, at any rate, have a sufficient degree of liquidity to enable them to deal with any calls that may reasonably be made upon them. There are about 900 building societies of all shapes, sizes and financial capacity in this country. There are some which have only mortgage securities and if there was a run on their funds or depositors decided to pay out there might be a difficulty. There are others which have, in my view, too small a proportion of investments easily realisable. Therefore, in my submission it is in the public interest that a society should be able to transfer to another society a sufficient number of mortgages to obtain ready money and be able to keep all its obligations to its depositors and shareholders at all times. It ought to be able to carry through such a transaction without the publicity which is so rightly insisted on by law in the case of a complete amalgamation. I hope that makes the position clear. If the proposal I have made was accepted, it would enable the transfer of mortgages to be made from one society to another, together with the appropriate collateral security which was the subject of discussion under the Building Societies Act of last year. My Amendment provides an ample safeguard for the mortgagor, although I doubt if it is really required; it is a practical proposal of very great value, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see his way to accept it.

7.56 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. and gallant Member has said that this is a rather more technical point than his earlier one, and I would like to say that it was put on the Order Paper only very recently, and, frankly, I have not had the time to discuss it and give it the consideration which it deserves. This is not one of the war Clauses, and in view of this it would be importing something into the permanent law regarding building societies in peace as well as war. While I appreciate the arguments put before the Committee, I should prefer it if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to withdraw the Amendment to-day and put it down again for the Report stage. While not committing myself in any way to its acceptance, this would give me further time to consider it with everybody concerned, and with the hon.


and gallant Member himself if he likes, with a view to seeing whether it should be inserted into the body of the law or not, without prejudice to the question of acceptance.

Major Milner: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I agree that the Amendment was put on the Order Paper rather late, and in those circumstances and with the conviction that on consideration he will feel it right to accept the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(Amalgamation and transfer of engagements of trade unions.)

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out from "provided," to "a," in line 38.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has intimated his intention of accepting this block of Amendments. Very little, therefore, requires to be said about them, but perhaps the Committee will allow me to make a brief explanation of the reasons for this series of Amendments on the Paper. Two points are involved. The first is the transfer of engagements from one union to another, and the other is the proposed repeal of existing legislation, in particular, the Act of 1917. In the case of the 1917 Act it provided for the ordinary procedure for the facilitating of amalgamations. Unions were called upon, and are still called upon, under the legislation to take a ballot of their members in the ordinary way preceding amalgamation. It was the intention of the Bill, as I understand it, to repeal that legislation, but on mature consideration it was thought to be undesirable to remove it altogether.
As regards the transfer of engagements, the position is this: It sometimes happens that two organisations decide to amalgamate, but it is undesirable that they should avail themselves of the usual procedure under the 1917 Act. One organisation may be large, perhaps with 100,000 members, and the other small, with 1,000 or 2,000 members. The large organisation, obviously, does not care to undertake all the cumbrous procedure involved in the 1917 Act or to take a ballot of its members and the like. It may be

asked why the smaller organisation could not be dissolved and then be absorbed by the larger organisation, but there are psychological reasons why the small organisation, with long-standing traditions of which it feels proud, should not dissolve in that way. It is, therefore, proposed that they should be permitted to transfer their engagements in the manner indicated, thus making it unnecesary to adopt the procedure of the 1917 Act. It is the desire of the trade union movement, and the view has been expressed by the Trades Union Congress, that everything that can be done should be done, both during war and, indeed, in peace, to enable an organisation to facilitate amalgamation. That is the view of the Trades Union Congress as representing the organisation, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concurs in that view.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 41, leave out "amalgamation or."

In page 6, line 4, leave out "three-fourths," and insert "two-thirds."—[Mr. Shinwell.]

In line 5, after "present," insert "and entitled to vote."—[Captain Crookshank.]

In line 7, leave out "a majority representing."

In line 8, leave out "three-fourths," and insert "two-thirds."

In line 8, leave out "whole number of members of the union," and insert "delegates present at the meeting."

In line 10, leave out "amalgamation or."

In line 12, leave out "in writing."

In line 13, leave out "every union amalgamating, or of."

In line 15, after "obtained," insert "either at meetings or in writing."

In line 24, leave out "amalgamation or."

In line 25, leave out "amalgamating or."

In line 29, leave out "or," and insert "with any other trade union or of any trade union."

In page 7, line 7, leave out "under this Section."

In line 15, leave out from "any," to "transfer," in line 17.

In line 18, leave out "those Acts," and insert:
the National Health Insurance Acts, 1936 to 1939.

In line 23, leave out Sub-section (5).—[Mr. Shinwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(Continuation during war service of membership of friendly society.)

Amendments made:

In page 7, line 35, leave out from "Crown," to "shall," in line 37.

In line 38, leave out "or employment."

In page 8, line 2, leave out "or employment."

In line 3, leave out "or employed."

In line 4, leave out "or employment."

In line 9, after "but," insert:
no further contributions shall be paid by him until the determination of his service or of the period of the emergency, whichever is the earlier, and.

In line 10, leave out from "suspended," to "as," in line 12, and insert:
until he subsequently resumes payment of contributions, and he shall thereupon."—[Major Milner.]

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I beg to move, in page 8, line 14, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if any member of a society dies whilst serving, his next of kin or other representative shall be entitled to any benefit to which they would have been entitled if death had occurred before the cessation of contributions.
I do not know whether the Financial Secretary has examined this Amendment, but I think he will agree that it is absolutely necessary, otherwise the representatives of men who have been killed will have no right to draw death benefits, because a previous provision says that no benefit shall be paid until he subsequently resumes payment of contributions. It is obvious that a dead man cannot possibly take steps to resume payment of contributions, and in view of that I think the Minister will agree that it is necessary to make this Amendment in order to secure the rights of the next of kin of a man who has been killed and who is not in a position to resume payment of contribution.

8.10 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I, of course, accept the undoubted fact that a dead man cannot pay contributions for any

purpose, but I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should have moved this Amendment. On the Second Reading of the Bill he objected to the whole principle of the Bill on the ground that there was nothing in it which could not be done by a friendly society or a trade union acting under its own rules without any assistance whatever from the State. The Bill was wrong, in his view, because it attempted to impose on trade unions and friendly societies certain things which they could do by amending their own rules. The curious thing is that his present Amendment wants to do the very thing to which he was strongly opposed in principle.

Mr. Naylor: I have to accept the inevitable.

Captain Crookshank: I wonder whether the hon. Member will accept the inevitability of my being unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Naylor: I accept the inevitability of a dead man not being able to resume contributions.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Did not my hon. Friendon the Second Reading say that the Bill prevented societies paying such benefits and that the Amendment he now proposes would compel them to do so?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think there is anything here which would prevent any society, if they so desired, making the desired concession in the ordinary way. Indeed Sub-section (4) says:
Nothing in this Section shall be taken to prevent a friendly society providing by its rules for the continuance of the membership of persons serving or employed as aforesaid upon terms more favourable than those provided by this Section.
I am advised that this provision will enable any society to do what the hon. Member seeks to impose on all societies. I should have thought he would have adhered to the views he so boldly enunciated on the Second Reading and have wished to interfere as little as possible with the organisation and management of the societies themselves.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: The Financial Secretary will recognise that the Clause with which we are now dealingmakes provision for the suspension of benefits to members


until such time as they resume contributions. My point is that a deceased member cannot possibly resume contributions, and that if there is no such Amendment in the Bill a trade union or a friendly society may say that they decline to pay benefit until the late member has resumed contributions. That will postpone the matter indefinitely, especially as no one will be able to discover where the late member may happen to be. My objection to the principle of the Bill was stated on the Second Reading, and I am satisfied, having stated it. As the House came to the conclusion that the Bill should be passed, I want to make a bad Bill as good as it can be made. That is the object of my Amendment. I want to make it quite clear that the next-of-kin of a deceased member has the protection of the law and that their interests are safeguarded in the event of a relative passing over. 
I am rather surprised that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not see the necessity for this Amendment. If the provision is passed as it now stands, it will offer a loophole which will enable societies to escape responsibility in regard to the payment of benefits in the circumstances I have mentioned. What can be the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's objection to the Amendment? There can be no misunderstanding as to what it means, and if, as he has suggested, unions or friendly societies could pay benefits without this addition being made, surely there can be no objection to making the matter clear, so that if a legal action takes place, the Act can be produced and the liability be placed upon the court to give a proper construction to its provisions. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the Amendment.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: It appears to me that there must be some safeguard against next-of-kin being deprived of their right to benefit. That is the sole point with which I am concerned at the moment, and to that extent I support my hon. Friend's Amendment. It may be that the Financial Secretary had had this Amendment thrust upon him, and for that reason is not in a position to give an adequate reply. I suggest that he might agree to give consideration to this matter between now and the Report stage, and perhaps my hon. Friend would be content with

such an assurance. We have no desire to go to a Division on this Amendment, but it seems to raise a point of substance, and there may well be some ambiguity which needs to be cleared up.

8.17 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: If there were any question of the next of kin and others now entitled to benefits being deprived of their entitlement through the accidental use of any wrong words in the Bill, that would not of course be right; and if it is felt that there is any possible dubiety I should be prepared to look into the matter again between now and the Report stage. This Clause is, so to speak, the friendly societies' own Clause. Neither the hon. Member who put down the Amendment nor the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has approached me on this specific point. If they think it would be wise to do so, I will, as I say, consider the matter again before the Report stage, because my only desire is to meet the wishes of the House on this Bill in general.

8.18 p.m.

Major Milner: It seems to me that if the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) were passed, it would impose an obligation on societies which they would not otherwise have, and it might be a very serious matter. I understand that the Amendment means that although there had been a cessation of contributions for one year, two years, or perhaps three years, if death occurred while the man was serving or employed the next of kin would be entitled to a benefit which would not otherwise be payable, and therefore, the Amendment might impose an additional obligation upon the societies. I hope that on further reflection, my hon. Friend will not think it right to do that.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I think there is a point concerning the next of kin which ought to be looked into. For instance, if a man was a prisoner of war for twelve months, he would not be able to pay his contributions, and they would be unpaid unless some relative paid them. In most cases, however, it is a question of a man making direct contributions. If the man died while he was a prisoner of war, the next of kin would have no claim, unless this Amendment


were inserted in the Bill. Therefore, I feel that some safeguard on the lines of the Amendment is necessary. I do not claim that the Amendment is a perfect one, but something ought to be done to safeguard a person who, for certain reasons connected with the war, is debarred from keeping in touch with his friendly society. I hope that the Amendment will be considered from that aspect.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: On the understanding that the Financial Secretary will give serious consideration to an Amendment on these lines—I do not insist on the actual words of this Amendment—and on the understanding that I shall take the opportunity of returning to the matter on the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 8, line 17, leave out "or employment aforesaid."— [Major Milner.]

8.21 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "before," and to insert "after."
I understand that the Financial Secretary accepts this Amendment. It is obvious that the reference ought to be to "after the expiration of the period of the emergency." The Amendment would give the member three or four months in which to resume the payment of his contributions.

Amendment agreed to.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 22, to leave out from "affect" to "contract," in line 23, and to insert "any."
I understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accepts this Amendment, which is clearly intended to remove an ambiguity. As the Sub-section now stands, it might refer to the collectors of friendly societies.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 8, line 28, leave out "or employed."—[Major Milner.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.23 p.m.

Major Milner: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was good enough to indicate at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill that he would accept the series of Amendments, I and my hon. Friends have not put forward any arguments on the Amendments, but I think that at this stage some recognition ought to be given to the fact that the friendly societies—and in this matter, I can, with my hon. Friends, speak for the National Conference of Friendly Societies, which represents some 7,000,000 members—are continuing the membership of all those who are serving in the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Crown. As a matter of fact, a great majority, if not all, of the societies would have done that without this Bill being introduced, and certainly recognition ought to be given to that fact. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated that he does not propose to proceed with Clause 8 of the Bill. If I may mention it in passing, though I have no wish to labour the matter, Clause 8 would have given a relief to the friendly societies. Since it is now to be withdrawn, then, as I have said, recognition ought to be given to the friendly societies for having accepted responsibility for those who are serving in the Armed Forces and for keeping them in membership, notwithstanding the fact that no relief is being afforded to them, such as was proposed in Clause 8.

8.26 p.m.

Sir R. Young: I wish to tender my thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary for having accepted these Amendments in relation to the friendly societies. As one who has been a friendly society member since a date which I can hardly remember, I can say that the societies would have done their duty by their members who are serving in the Armed Forces in any case and that the statutory obligation which is now being imposed upon them would not have been required. The statutory obligation, however, is being imposed on all societies, and I am much obliged to the Minister for having accepted these Amendments.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Reduction of friendly society and trade union benefit in cases where compensation, pension or grant is payable in respect of war injury or disease.)

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of certain societies to set up fund for purchase on behalf of members of Government securities.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 40, leave out "industrial and provident society," and insert:
any society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928."—[Captain Crookshank.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendments made:

In page 12, leave out lines 14 to 22.

Leave out lines 26 to 28.—[Mr. Shinwell.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed [Bill 32].

Orders of the Day — SPECIAL ENACTMENTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of appropriate Minister to extend time.)

8.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bernays): I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to add:
Provided that this Act shall not apply to a duty or power imposed or conferred by an Act passed, or an Order made, after the passing of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears in that Act or Order.
This Amendment is moved solely for the purpose of clarity. It is intended to make it clear that Parliament is not being asked to enable these orders to vary duties or powers fixed in some future Statute, unless Parliament gives that power in the Statute itself. This was,

of course, the intention of the Bill as originally presented, but some doubts have been cast upon it, and in order to make the position abundantly clear, I move this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am pleased to see that we have in charge of this Bill to-night a Minister who still holds the same office as that which he held last night and that there is, therefore, some possibility of continuity of policy in relation to this matter. I wish to put one question regarding the administration of this Clause. The Minister will recollect that on the Second Reading several of my hon. Friends and I raised the question of the length of time for which these postponing orders will be granted. There was a strong desire on this side, shared, I understood, by the hon. Gentleman himself, that this Clause should not be used in such a way as to hinder public works being put into operation should the war end, and should it become necessary, in order to provide employment, that certain works postponed under this enactment be put into operation immediately. I hope, therefore, we may have an assurance that consideration will be given to the time for which an Order will be granted and that it will not be insisted upon that an Order must, automatically, be made for three years.
I would also like to ask the question regarding Sub-section (3, b). I understand there are one or two cases in which a commencement has been made with the exercise of purchase rights by local authorities of electricity undertakings. I understand that in the case of High Wycombe, for instance, the local authority has gone some considerable distance with the negotiations and that during the past fortnight a resolution, which would have been effective in ordinary circumstances, has been passed, so that normally the electricity undertaking would have been purchased. In those cases—in which, I think, all the negotiations were concluded before the outbreak of war—are those purchase rights to be exercised or will difficulties be raised, and if difficulties do arise, will they be met under this Sub-section?

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: On the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman I can, most willingly, give him the assurance for which he asks. The three years period is a maximum, and, of course, it will be possible to apply this for a less period than three years. As to his second question, I am not familiar with the details of the High Wycombe case and the other cases to which he has referred, but I shall certainly make inquiries and let him know what the position is in regard to that matter.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions as to applications and orders for extension.)

8.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end to insert:
Provided that if that time expired or that date fell on or after the twenty-first day of February, nineteen hundred and forty, such an application may be made within three months from the passing of this Act.
As I understand that the Minister is taking the rather unusual course as far as my Amendments are concerned and is viewing this one in a sympathetic light, I think there is no need to take up the time of the Committee with any lengthy explanation. However, a few words as to the reason why this Amendment was put down will not be altogether out of place. It will be seen that under Clause 2
an application for an order under this Act must be made before the expiration of the time within which, or the date at which, the duty to which the application relates is to be discharged, or.
In certain cases, owing to unsettled conditions prevailing since the war, this has not been done, and the object of the Amendment is to ensure that cases where this time limit expired after the introduction of the Bill should not be treated differently from cases where the time limit expired after the Bill became law. In fact, certain local bodies were uncertain what their position would be, and the long delay in introducing this legislation has not helped them.
The necessity for the proviso is that various authorities were informed that the Government were proposing to introduce

a Bill on the lines of the legislation of the last war, and were, I think, entitled to assume that it would have been passed into law before this. So far as I know, there are not many cases to which the proviso would apply, but an example would be the case of Great Yarmouth. There the corporation obtained from the Ministry of Health a Compulsory Purchase Order dated 23rd March, 1937, enabling the corporation to acquire compulsorily certain lands for the purposes of Part III of the Housing Act, 1936. The Order incorporates the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, and under those Acts the notices to treat have to be served within three years after the date upon which the powers are conferred, so that the time expired on the 22nd of last month.
Owing, I understand, to the unsettled conditions in recent times, the notices to treat were not served, and the corporation hope, therefore, that the Bill may be made retrospective so as to enable the Minister in his discretion to make an Order extending the time for the service of the notices. It is to safeguard municipal corporations which are in this position that this Amendment is moved.

8.40 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: In general, we all, I think, dislike retrospective legislation, but the purpose of this Amendment, as it now stands, is very different from the one originally tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend. It is retrospective only to a very small extent. I think the Prime Minister, speaking elsewhere, said that somebody had missed the bus, and this Amendment is to enable those who have missed the bus to have a new service put on. If only these people had exercised their powers in proper time there would be no need for the Amendment. When it was originally proposed to restore to the people who have not done their job properly in time between 1st September and the passing of this Act, I think it was going too far; but this Amendment takes as a starting date the date of the introduction of the Bill in another place. The introduction of a Bill is, I think, an appropriate form of notice, and to be retrospective up to that date is the best way of doing it. It is, however, always important to place on record the dislike we have of retrospective legislation; but for the special reason which has


been explained, I do not think there will be any objection to this Amendment.

8.41 p.m.

Major Milner: I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in his dislike of retrospective legislation, but in this case we must always bear in mind that we are in war time, and that in many respects many of our people, and some of our corporations, seem to forget it. Here, in this case, as has been indicated, the date on which application must be made is within three months from the date of the introduction of the Bill. As I understand is the case with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I, too, speak on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing the whole of the municipal corporations of the country. The matter is an extremely important one, and it is hoped that these authorities will take advantage of the facilities offered by this Amendment and make application in due time.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that the House does not like retrospective legislation, and that there has to be a case for it. Clearly, I think, there is a case here, because various authorities were informed last October that the Government were considering legislation on the lines of the 1915 Act, and they had reasonable grounds for expecting that the powers contained in this Bill would be available in regard to the powers that lapsed in March, 1940. For this reason I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether there are any such powers in Ordinances granted by the Ministry which are excluded from being renewed by the fact that this power can only date from the introduction of the Bill? The hon. Gentleman indicated that the conversations took place in October and that in the period between October and February there might have been cases where these powers had lapsed. Certainly in the case of the purchase rights of electricity undertakings they are not exercisable generally on 31st March, but on any day in the month on which the lease happens to be signed.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I have made inquiries on that point and neither my own Department, nor the Ministry of Health, knows of such a case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bernays: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
The provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall apply to an inquiry held under this Sub-section as they apply to inquiries held under that Section, as if for references therein to a department there were substituted references to the appropriate Minister.
These words were in the Bill as originally introduced in another place but were taken out on Third Reading on a question of privilege. I beg to move that they now be inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 26, at the end, insert:
(b) Sub-section (3) of Section two shall have effect as if Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, applied to Scotland with the substitution of references to an order for references to a summons and the omission of the word 'summarily,' in Sub-section (4) and of the words from 'and every such order,' in Sub-section (5) to the end of the Sub-section."—[Mr. Bernays.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 41, at the end, insert:
(2) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland Sub-section (3) of Section two shall have effect as if Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933, applied to Northern Ireland."—[Mr. Bernays.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Clifton Brown in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Interpretation.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.46 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: This Clause gives a definition of "National Service." Any person in training as a solicitor who undertakes national service shall have that service taken into consideration by the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland and the Law Society in England. National service is defined as service in the naval, military or air forces, or detention as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy country, or internment in an enemy or neutral country. It is also defined as any public service connected with or consequent upon the present emergency and being of a character approved by the Registrar. I would like to elicit from the Government a statement whether national service with the Auxiliary Fire Service or Air Raid Precautions will come under the category of service in the naval, military or air forces, or whether the character of the service is to be approved by the Registrar. If a man has undertaken A.R.P. work or service in the Auxiliary Fire Service and as a result has been taken from his studies, it is incumbent upon the Government to state that this service shall be fully considered.
Then there is the position of the conscientious objector. His Majesty's Opposition are completely in favour of securing an end to aggression, but the Prime Minister himself has made it clear that in this democracy every consideration will be given within reason to those who have honest and sincere conscientious objections to war. A student who is a conscientious objector may appear before a tribunal and agree to undertake work, say, of an agricultural character, or work which the tribunal may decide is of a national character. I would like to know, as no specific mention is made of this type of service, whether it will come under the national service definition and receive fair and honest consideration. What will the character of such service have to be, to be approved by the Registrar?

8.51 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I would say offhand that I should doubt whether every case in which a conscientious objector merely did what the hon. Gentleman has described as national service, which might mean simply returning to his occupation because it was deemed to be one in which he could do that service, could be called public service connected with the emergency. No doubt there might be cases where he would be performing a public service and where, as a term of his exemption, he might be required to do a public service.

Mr. Davidson: There is no specific mention of agriculture or of engineering, which are both services of national importance.

The Solicitor-General: But hardly public service connected with the emergency. I should have thought that these words applied to cases of non-combatant service in one of the units, such as the Red Cross, that would be a condition of exemption as a conscientious objector. For that reason, I should certainly not imagine that it could be said generally that anybody who was exempted on condition of doing work of national importance would automatically be entitled to claim that he could have his period of articles shortened or be exempted from the intermediate examination set by the Law Society. Whether that be so or not, what is certain is that even if he were a conscientious objector required to do national service which was public service, it would still remain within the discretion of the Registrar, which means the Law Society in England and the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland, as to whether he should have the advantages given by this Bill. It is inherent in the whole scheme of the Bill that there should be a discretion of that kind. Indeed, without some such discretion vested in generous terms it would be impossible to cover all the cases that it is desired to cover. I feel sure that so far as the substance of the hon. Member's point is concerned, he can rely upon the Law Society in England and the General Council in Scotland to exercise their discretion with the utmost generosity in the case of people who are engaged on public service.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the position that so far as service in the naval, military and air forces and detention abroad are concerned, the articled clerk receives this advantage, but that when it comes to a man who is a conscientious objector or is performing another public service, he does not receive the rights conferred in the earlier Sub-sections but is dependent on the discretion of a new authority, namely, the Registrar or the Law Society?

The Solicitor-General: That is not quite so, because there is discretion all through the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 1 he will see that it is in the discretion of the Council whether they shall grant exemption. There are, so to speak, two discretions, a discretion as to the character of the work undertaken, which is within the discretion of the Registrar, and the discretion of the Council as to whether that shall result in exemption being granted. Subject to that, the right hon. Gentleman's point is right, that if the man is, in fact, engaged in the service of the Crown that is a national service which enables him to apply for the discretion of the Council without further question. If, on the other hand, he is not in the service of the Crown, but doing a public service connected with the emergency, then it must be of a character which is approved by the Registrar before he can appeal for the discretion of the Council.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Benn: That seems to me, on the face of it, to be objectionable, because this House has decided that conscientious objectors shall not be put in a worse position if a tribunal has found that their objections are well based, whereas this Clause gives to another authority the power to re-try their case. That appears to penalise conscientious objectors, who, Parliament has declared, should be in the same position as other persons.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the point about those who take service in the auxiliary fire service or other A.R.P. organisations. That is said to be work of national importance. My desire tonight is that while these powers are left with the Registrar and with the General Council of Solicitors, that at least they shall be able to look to the speeches of

representatives of the Government for some guidance upon points which will crop up. As my right hon. Friend has stated, this Bill gives power to another individual to re-try the case of the conscientious objector or to decide whether the work he is undertaking on the ruling of a committee set up by the Government, in keeping with the Prime Minister's promise to conscientious objectors, is work of national importance. Take, for example, the case of a man whose conscientious objection has been found by the tribunal to be well based and who has agreed to undertake work in agriculture, which has been described as a national service, one for which we have enlisted an army of land girls. If he can prove that his undertaking of this work has debarred him from his studies will that be fully taken into account? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give us some guidance as to the line which he would trust, as a Government representative, would be taken?

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I think there has been some little confusion and that possibly I am not altogether free from blame for not having cleared it up. This is a widening provision, designed to give a generous discretion to the Registrar to decide in a doubtful case whether a man is performing a public service or not. It has nothing to do with his character as a conscientious objector. The instance given by the hon. Member of the auxiliary fireman is a good example. It may very well be the case, indeed, I should think it probably would be, that an auxiliary fireman would have no difficulty in satisfying the Registrar that his was service of a character of which he could approve, so as to send him forward to permit him to have an exemption. But the fact that he had undertaken that service on account of being a conscientious objector has got nothing to do with the matter at all. It only so happens that he undertook that work because he was a conscientious objector. The provision deals with the character of the work and not with the character of the persons, and so there is no question whatever of the conscientious objector, because he has a conscientious objection, being subjected to a scrutiny which by reason of our conscientious objection legislation we have recognised to be undesirable.
Because of the impossibility of putting into a sort of table the things that are public services without missing out a good many which we do not want to overlook, we leave the widest possible discretion to the Registrar, and the character of the individual really does not come within the Registrar's scope and it would be wrong of him to take it into account.

Mr. Benn: Then we can take it that the Solicitor-General has assured us that this Sub-section in no way denies to a conscientious objector the protection of the law?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly, that is so.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to reckon national service as service under indenture of apprenticeship for the purposes of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I wish to raise a question upon the first paragraph of this Clause, which says:
Where any person, who has been or shall be during the period of the present emergency engaged in national service, has entered or shall enter into an indenture of apprenticeship in terms of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland may at their discretion permit the whole or any part of the period of such service to be reckoned as actual service under such indenture for the purposes of the said Act.
I ask the Lord Advocate whether he does not consider that these are very wide powers to give to the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland? Men may serve in this war for periods of two, three or six months, or one or two years, or for however long the war may last, and while I make no allegations against this Council, who I trust will be fair-minded men of good character, I say that it is not right that they should have the right of differentiating among applicants as to how much of the period of service shall be counted. Why are we giving the Council the power to say to one man, "Your three years shall count" and to another man, "Only two years of your

three years shall count"? It is entirely within their discretion to permit the whole or any part of the period of service to count. I think the Lord Advocate will recognise that my main purpose is to make this Clause as generous as possible to those who give service to the nation in this emergency, and I feel that this provision would leave the General Council of Solicitors with so much power that influences may be brought to bear—as they have been with regard to appointments in Scotland in the past—that wires may be pulled, to have this or that much of the period of service counted. A very dangerous position would be set up. I would like to know what guidance or control the Government and the Lord Advocate have over any such decision that may be come to by this General Council.

9.6 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has perhaps not observed that the provisions in Clause 9 in regard to Scotland are the precise counterpart of the provisions in Clause 3 in regard to England. He will find in Clause 3, which the Committee have already passed, that the council, which there means the Council of the Law Society, is given a discretion in relation to the articles of the articled clerk, and that that discretion is substantially identical with that which it is proposed to confer upon the General Council of Solicitors as regards the indentured clerk or Scottish apprentice.

Mr. Davidson: That is not the point of substance.

The Lord Advocate: The short point which I was going to make at the outset was that it would be rather odd for objection to be taken to the scheme of Clause 9 when the Committee has already passed an identical scheme in Clause 3. Be that as it may, the General Council of Solicitors in Scotland is a body set up under Statute, the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, with a mass of powers and duties conferred upon it by Parliament, in regard to the control, education, training and admission of solicitors in Scotland. It is the governing body, exercising functions comparable with those of the Law Society in England. They are discharging to-day, under statutory direction and under an overriding control, powers and discretions very similar to those proposed to be conferred


upon them by this Clause. As the Solicitor-General has just said with regard to Clause 8, this is an empowering Clause to give them a slightly wider discretion in one particular respect than they already possess by enabling them to deal with apprentices who are engaged on national service.
I feel strongly that if the hon. Gentleman really entertains any idea that, in the discharge of its duties under the Clause, the General Council would be actuated by what he described as influence or the pulling of wires, any such suggestion is wholly without the slightest foundation. From my experience of the work of the General Council in the education and training of solicitors in Scotland I have the utmost confidence in the way in which this power will be used. If the power is not given, the only result will be that when the war is over and men return from the Services, from prisons or from internment camps, they may have to wait unduly long before they can get into positions where they can earn a living. I commend the Clause to the Committee as a proper and reasonable one. The suggestions and apprehensions of the hon. Member are without any foundation whatever.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman has not met the point which I submitted. It may be all very well to stand up and make a general defence of the General Council of Solicitors and to say that in no circumstances need we fear their being influenced. I would remind the Lord Advocate that some time ago I raised a question with regard to the appointment of advocates in Scotland. I did so because I had received from the Government's solicitors in Scotland the definite statement that preference was being given to certain individuals. Therefore, to say that we need have no fear and that such suspicions need not be entertained, is completely to blind oneself to the fact that among solicitors in Scotland there has for a long period been very much dissatisfaction at wire pulling and preferential treatment being given in regard to certain appointments. I think, therefore, that I am on safe ground in this matter. May I ask the Lord Advocate whether he can say what the position will be? A man may come before the General Council of Solicitors after having served in His Majesty's Forces. They must

put in two years bona fide, but if a man has three years' service and the council decide that only one year shall be counted, has the man any right of appeal, say, to the Lord Advocate himself?

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Davidson: Is he completely and wholly at the mercy, and has he to accept the decisions, of the General Council of Solicitors?

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

Mr. Davidson: I think right of appeal should have been provided for men who have given service and who naturally desire the maximum amount of that service to be counted. They should have a right of appeal to the Department of the right hon. Gentleman himself. That would have been a fair concession to make to men who have given up for the sake of their country what were often very important studies in a very important profession. I am very disappointed. I do not desire in any way to hold this Bill back, because certain improvements are contained in it, but I am completely and thoroughly disappointed with the failure of the Lord Advocate and the Government to protect the interests of the men, and at leaving them completely in the hands of an outside body. The Government, having accepted their service, ought to see to it that full and adequate recompense is given to them for any services they may have rendered to the nation.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes after Nine o'Clock, until Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day